Chanuka Candles as an Obligation of the House
By Rav Moshe Taragin
The gemara (Shabbat 21b) articulates the basic mitzva of "neirot Chanuka" (the Chanuka lights) in very suggestive terms. The gemara asserts that the mitzva takes the form of "ner ish u-beito" (the candle of a man and his household). This language indicates that each household must light one candle or wick each evening, regardless of the day and regardless of the number of family members. This basic level represents the essential obligation of Chanuka candles. Those who seek to perform a higher level of the mitzva add lights based upon the amount of family members and the ascending day of Chanuka.
What does the gemara intend by the term "beito"? Does the word merely imply that each "household" is obligated to light one candle? Or does the gemara suggest that the mitzva of the Chanuka lights is somehow closely identified with the Jewish home?
In general, mitzvot apply to individuals and can be conditioned by certain geographical or temporal factors. For example, a person must eat matza on the 15th of Nissan. The mitzva devolves upon each person on that day. Similarly, a person must, under certain circumstances, offer a sacrifice in the Beit Ha-mikdash, the Temple. Though the mitzva cannot be performed outside of the Mikdash, the mitzva still applies to the person; the holy precinct is merely the site of the execution of the mitzva.
One notable exception is the mitzva of mezuza, which applies to the house. A person is not obligated to live in a house with a mezuza; rather, if a Jew owns a house, he or she must then convert it into a house with mezuzot. In this instance, the mitzva which a person must perform relates directly to the house. The classic language employed to describe this condition is that mezuza is a "chovat ha-bayit" (an obligation pertaining to the house) rather than a "chovat gavra" (an obligation pertaining the person).
Does the gemara, by employing the language "ner ish u-beito," suggest that Chanuka candles should be analogous to mezuza? How seriously or literally should we take this language? Must a person light Chanuka candles, with the selected site for execution of this mitzva being the house, or is the mitzva defined as turning a house into one which contains Chanuka candles?
Two sources that study the relationship between Chanuka candles and mezuza must first be inspected. Tosafot (Sukka 46a) question why, of all mitzvot, the mitzva of Chanuka candles features a unique blessing for someone who witnesses the performance of the mitzva but does not perform it himself. The gemara (Shabbat 24a) claims that, under certain conditions, a person who gazes upon a lit menora should recite the blessing "She-asa nissim la-avoteinu," "Who performed miracles for our ancestors." Why does someone who witnesses a sukka not recite a similar blessing?
Tosafot's first answer analyzes the role of Chanuka candles in celebrating and publicizing a miracle; this special function mandates a blessing even for a witness who is not actually performing the mitzva. Tosafot consider a second reason for Chanuka candles' privileged status: since many people do not own houses (and would not otherwise fulfill any element of the mitzva), a special blessing was instituted for spectators. Tosafot then question this last answer: if the concern for homeless people were so dominant, we would establish a similar blessing in the case of mezuza, which also cannot be fulfilled without a house. Do Tosafot mean to equate mezuza and Chanuka candles at a structural level? Just as mezuza is a chovat ha-bayit and does not enjoy a special blessing, similarly Chanuka candles, which is also a chovat ha-bayit, should not be granted this blessing? Or, alternatively, do Tosafot merely suggest that since these two mitzvot are performed only in the context of a house, they should exhibit similar properties regarding blessings for spectators? It is somewhat difficult to assess the basis of Tosafot's analogy.
From the Rambam's view (Hilkhot Berakhot 11:2), however, we might receive a less ambiguous understanding of Chanuka candles. The Rambam (in his catalogue of various mitzvot and their respective blessings) suggests that there are two types of mitzvot: "chova," an absolute obligation, and "reshut," a command which must be fulfilled only if certain preconditions exist. Of course, the two classic examples of biblical mitzvot of the latter category are mezuza and tzitzit. Without a four-cornered garment, a person has absolutely no obligation to purchase one in order to fulfill the mitzva of tzitzit; similarly, one has no obligation to buy a house in order to fulfill the mitzva of mezuza. Moreover, just as these two categories of mitzvot exist on the Biblical plane, they appear on the rabbinical one as well. Examples of rabbinical reshut include "eiruvei chatzeirot," the extension of one's domain to permit carrying outside on Shabbat, and "netillat yadayim," the obligation to wash one's hand before eating bread. Examples of rabbinical chova include reading the megilla on Purim and lighting candles on Chanuka. The Rambam unequivocally defines Chanuka candles as a chovat gavra; regardless of whether he owns a house, a person is obligated in the mitzva - but from a technical standpoint, without a house, once cannot execute the mitzva.
This question regarding the fundamental nature of Chanuka candles comes to expression in several halakhic manifestations. The most glaring might just be the case of "akhsenai" (lodger) debated by the gemara (Shabbat 23a). If someone is a guest at another's house during Chanuka, how does he fulfill the mitzva of Chanuka candles? The Gemara first quotes Rav Sheishet, who declares that a guest is obligated to fulfill the mitzva. By not specifying any special mode of executing the mitzva, Rav Sheshet suggests the guest performs it in the exact same manner as the host, by lighting his own menora. The Ran, in his commentary to the Rif's rulings, concludes from this halakha that Chanuka candles should not be confused with mezuza; whereas the latter is obligatory only if one owns a house, the obligation of Chanuka candles applies even if one does not. By announcing the obligation and manner of performance of the akhsenai, the gemara preempts any thoughts of comparing Chanuka candles to mezuza.
After Rav Sheshet, the gemara cites Rav Zeira, who suggests a different manner by which the guest performs the mitzva: the visitor pays a peruta's worth of money to his or her host. This new manner of performing the mitzva supports the notion that Chanuka candles are indeed a chovat ha-bayit, thus forcing the akhsenai to adjust his performance. The guest cannot just light his or her own menora, because the akhsenai is not lighting in his own house. By paying money, the akhsenai is asking the homeowner to perform the mitzva on the guest's behalf. Some have even suggested that this payment turns the akhsenai, having paid a symbolic rent, into a temporary member of the household, and allows the guest to perform the mitzva of Chanuka candles in a context approximating his or her own residence. Regardless, either explanation assumes that an akhsenai cannot merely replicate the behavior of a homeowner, confirming that indeed the mitzva of Chanuka candles is a chovat ha-bayit according to the view of Rav Zeira. Indeed, our question may form the basis of his argument with Rav Sheshet.
A second consequence of this question deals with the exact placement of the menora. Though the aforementioned gemara suggested that it must be lit in the house, that passage does not specify the exact location within the house. A subsequent gemara (21b) claims that the menora is placed in the entrance to the house, on the outside. This statement seems to imply that the menora is to be set in the entrance from the reshut ha-rabbim (street, or public domain) to the house. Such a reading would actually place the menora in reshut ha-rabbim. Rashi disputes this idea and claims that the menora should be placed in the entrance from the courtyard to the house. (In Mishnaic and Talmudic times, a common courtyard was shared by the inhabitants of a number of private houses.)
What forced Rashi to relocate the menora from the reshut ha-rabbim to the courtyard? Could Rashi have opposed placing a menora in the public area because he viewed the mitzva as one OF THE HOUSE and not merely as one performed IN THE HOUSE? If the house is merely the site of the mitzva, then the part of reshut ha-rabbim adjacent to the house suffices; if, however, we must convert the house into one which is graced by Chanuka candles, we might insist that the menora be located within the four walls and the domain of the house. It should be noted that not only do many authorities dispute Rashi's ruling, but Rashi himself (Shabbat 22 and Bava Kama 22) seems to allow a menora in reshut ha-rabbim under certain conditions. The context of this shiur does not allow a fuller explication of Rashi's position, but his comments on Shabbat 21b do indeed evoke an image of chovat ha-bayit.
Another issue relating to placement of the menora relates to the height. The gemara disqualifies a menora which is placed above twenty amot, or 30-40 feet (in those days before apartment building); since people generally did not look above twenty amot, the publicizing of the miracle, the primary aim of lighting Chanuka candles, would have been severely compromised. Subsequently, the gemara debates whether we should impose an even stricter height limit of ten tefachim (30-40 inches). The source of the ten-tefach limit, however, is not clear.
The Ritva comments that halakha often recognizes a height of ten tefachim as a separate legal domain. For example, if a podium of ten tefachim is placed in reshut ha-rabbim, that area is deemed a private domain for Shabbat purposes (i.e., a person may freely carry on the podium). As the space above ten tefachim is a different domain, the menora must be placed beneath ten tefachim, so that a person and his or her menora will remain in the same domain.
Though the Ritva's interpretation of the ten-tefach space is provocative, his conclusion that a person and the menora should occupy the same space might corroborate our earlier view. Since Chanuka candles are a mitzva OF THE HOUSE, we must situate the menora firmly within the house. Just as Rashi disallows dislocating the menora from the house into the reshut ha-rabbim, the Ritva insists that the menora be tethered to the actual zone within the house that its lighters occupy. Rashi's limitation and the Ritva's explanation derive from the same logical concept.
The Chanuka Menora and the Menora of the Temple
By Rav Moshe Taragin
Last year's Chanuka shiur explored the degree of integration between the house and the mitzva of Chanuka candles. We posited that the mitzva might be considered a "chovat bayit" - not a mitzva which devolves upon the individual, but one which governs the nature of his house. One of the primary consequences of this position was the uncertain status of one who lodges outside his home on Chanuka. What type of mitzva may he perform outside the environs of his house? We witnessed that, at least according to one opinion in the gemara, the absence of a home residence inhibits him from the classic mitzva and mandates his paying money to his host to somehow participate in the mitzva THROUGH his host.
If this were to be true, we might reconsider the custom of lighting a menora in synagogue - a site where seemingly no one lives.
The question of lighting in synagogue was first posed by the Sefer ha-Manhig. This custom doesn't appear in the Gemara and apparently emerged during the period between the close of the Gemara and the early Rishonim. As a premise, he assumes the parity between menora and mezuza (see Tosafot, Sukka 46a). Just as a synagogue is excused from mezuza (according to many positions) since it is not a site of primary residence, similarly a synagogue should be excluded from menora lighting - and certainly from reciting the blessing. His multilayered response evokes two different approaches which will be elaborated in this shiur.
The first idea contained in his response suggests that since we regard the synagogue as a mikdash me'at (a miniature Temple in exile, based on Yechezkel 11:16), we light the menora in the mikdash me'at just as we used to light the menora in the Mikdash. Indeed, the lighting in synagogue is discrepant with the classic structure of the mitzva and its requisite criteria. However, it is performed to evoke the memory of the original lighting of the menora in the Temple.
This view, that the Chanuka menora eternalizes the menora of the Temple, is voiced by several other Rishonim within numerous contexts. The primary narrative source is cited by the Ramban in Beha'alotekha, who excerpts a midrash chronicling a discussion between God and Aharon. The latter was somewhat despondent at having missed the opportunity to participate in the inaugural tributes offered by the princes of each tribe (as enumerated in parashat Naso). To console him, God assured him that he would enjoy a unique mitzva in the Temple which would far supersede the tribute of the princes. This mitzva would not only be performed daily in the Temple, but would be feted during the miracle of Chanuka and would be performed eternally. This midrash clearly associates the lighting of our Chanuka menora with the original menora of the Temple.
The first halakhic expression of this identification appears in the commentary of the Ba'al Ha-ma'or (Shabbat 21a). The gemara forbids receiving pleasure from or utilizing in any way the light of the menora. The gemara then questions the view that we should ban any use: "Do the candles have any sanctity?" Apparently, the gemara explores other means by which to justify the aforementioned prohibition - endorsing the claim that candles indeed possess no sanctity. The Ba'al Ha-ma'or suggests that the original prohibition (which was quite extensive in its scope) was indeed based upon an inherent sanctity within the lit candle/oil. This sanctity stems from the menora's status as hekdesh, a sanctified Temple object, akin to the hekdesh status which the original menora and its oil enjoyed.
According to the Ba'al Ha-ma'or, the sweeping ban on using the menora evolves from its status as an extension of the original menora of the Temple. In fact, we allude to this condition during the singing of "Ha-nerot halalu" when we exclaim, "These candles are HOLY and we have no permission to utilize them for our own benefit." We attribute the prohibition to use the Chanuka menora to the holy status which it possesses - a status which only its association with the menora of Temple would confer.
A second manifestation of this correspondence appears in a comment of the Ra'avad (Hilkhot Berakhot 11:15). The Rambam catalogues the different mitzvot and differentiates between their respective berakhot. Some berakhot take the form of "al," ON the mitzva of x (e.g. al akhilat matza, al mikra megilla), while others are recited as "le-," TO perform the mitzva of x (e.g. lishmo'a kol shofar, leisheiv ba-sukka). The Ra'avad comments that the blessing recited upon the menora is of the latter variety (lehadlik ner shel Chanuka), since this was the berakha recited in the Temple when lighting the menora. The desire to recite the identical blessing recited in the Temple indicates the attempt to recreate the lighting of the Temple with our Chanuka menorot.
A third expression surrounds a discussion of the gemara in Shabbat (23b-24a). The gemara ponders the essence of the mitzva and raises two options - hadlaka oseh mitzva or hanacha oseh mitzva: Is the mitzva accomplished by lighting or by placing the menora in the required area (compatible with the aim of publicizing the miracle)? The gemara suggests various consequences of this issue: Can a minor light while the adult performs the ultimate placement? Should the blessing be recited as "lehadlik" or "lehani'ach?"
Rashi, in his comments to this debate, claims that the position of hadlaka oseh mitzva is based upon the dynamic of lighting the menora in Temple. Ostensibly, the mitzva was performed by lighting the actual menora of the Temple, and the execution of that act constitutes our mitzva as well.
Interestingly, a later commentator read into this association with Temple the opposite conclusion. The Anvei Nezer claims that the position of hanacha oseh mitzva (the placement entails the mitzva) is based upon the correspondence to Temple. He notes the Rambam's claim that the actual lighting of the menora in Temple could have been performed legally by a non-kohen. If so, the actual mitzva cannot be the lighting. The mitzva of the kohanim took the form of hatava, cleaning and maintaining the lit candles. Since the format of the mitzva in Temple was clearly not lighting, we cannot point to the lighting of our menora as the essential mitzva. Hence, we spotlight the accessory elements of the Chanuka lighting - namely the placement.
Rashi and the Avnei Nezer (based upon his understanding of the Rambam) reached opposite conclusions by establishing the identity of the Chanuka menora as a continuation of the Temple menora.
Based upon this identity, the Manhig tries to defend the custom to light the menora in the synagogue. If he is correct in this assertion, we might determine the location of the menora in synagogue based upon the precedent of the Temple. Much debate surrounded the location of the menora in synagogue. As the standard location near the door was no longer imperative (since the community which formed the audience of our lighting is located within the synagogue), placement became debatable. The Shulchan Arukh (Orach Chayim 671) cites the custom to align the menora in the southern part of the synagogue in a north-south vector. The Taz notes that this arrangement is evocative of the location of the menora in the Temple.
AFTERWORD:
An issue of interest surrounding this association is raised by the Avnei Nezer. He wonders whether it is necessary for a person to employ an actual menora or merely to light the requisite amount of candles. He bases his requirement of an actual menora upon the possible correspondence between the Chanuka menora and the menora of the Temple.
The Blessing of "She-assa Nissim" and Publicizing the Miracle
By Rav Moshe Taragin
The gemara (Shabbat 23a) introduces the three berakhot (blessings) recited on lighting Chanuka candles. The first berakha – "le-hadlik ner shel Chanuka" - resembles a standard birkat ha-mitzva. The final berakha – "she-hecheyanu" – is also familiar: all holidays carry this berakha. The middle berakha, however, appears far less frequently. In fact, only one, or possibly two, other mitzvot require the recitation of this berakha of "she-assa nissim."
One recites this berakha before reading the megilla on Purim. Apparently, this berakha reflects the added dimension common to megilla reading and Chanuka candles, namely, pirsumei nisa – publicizing the miracle. Aside from the essential mitzva of lighting, one also performs the mitzva of publicizing the miracle when he kindles the Chanuka candles. Similarly, the pirsumei nisa achieved through megilla reading also dictates the recitation of the extra berakha of she-assa nissim.
In fact, the only other mitzva which generates pirsumei nisa – arba kosot on Pesach night – also mandates an extra berakha. Although we do not recite the standard berakha of she-assa nissim, we do recite the berakha of asher ge'alanu (immediately prior to drinking the second cup), effectively dedicating a berakha to describing the miracle of Pesach.
To summarize: There exist three mitzvot (all de-rabbanan) that carry the component of pirsumei nisa. This is indicated by the presence of an additional berakha: in the case of Chanuka and Purim, the berakha of she-assah nissim, and in the case of Pesach, the berakha of asher ge'alanu.
Having attributed the berakha of she-assa nissim to pirsumei nisa, we might question the degree to which the berakha is tethered to the act of lighting. Did Chazal institute a completely separate berakha to commemorate the miracle, or did they instruct that the berakha be recited on the pirsumei nisa generated by the act of lighting? To what extent can the pirsumei nisa (and, by extension, the berakha) be severed from the act of lighting?
The gemara (Shabbat 23a) asserts that the berakhot are to be recited during the hadlaka. This is obviously the preferred option. But what happens if, post facto, the pirsumei nisa occurs separately from the lighting?
One such scenario is brought in the gemara itself (Shabbat 23a), which instructs someone who sees lit Chanuka candles to recite the berakha of she-assa nissim. Though he has not lit himself, he may still recite the berakha on the pirsumei nisa generated by witnessing the lighting of others.
The Rishonim argue as to the scope of this halakha. According to Rashi, the berakha is recited only by someone who has not lit, will not light and has no one lighting for him at home. Ideally, she-assa nissim should be tethered to the act of lighting and the fulfillment of the mitzva of hadlaka. If this is impossible, the berakha may be severed from the act of lighting.
Even if we accept the extreme position (stated by the Rashba) that anyone who sees Chanuka candles – even if he plans to personally light - must still recite she-assa nissim, we still witness the medium of a ner as the basis for pirsumei nisa and the consequent berakha. Indeed, according to most Rishonim, if a person cannot light and does not behold anyone else lighting, he recites no berakha. Though we may separate the berakha from the ACT of lighting, it cannot be detached from the medium of ner Chanuka.
A notable exception to this position is the Me'iri (in Masekhet Shabbat), who rules that if a person has no opportunity to light or witness lights, he should still recite the berakha of she-assa nissim on the festival of Chanuka itself. Though ideally pirsumei nisa is integrated with the mitzva of lighting, it may be isolated as an independent entity.
This question affects a second issue, as well. If someone lights the chanukia in shul (and recites the berakha of she-assa nissim), should he repeat the berakha at home that evening (assuming he does not recite the berakha for anyone else)? In theory, if she-assa nissim can exist as an independent berakha, then once a person recites it that evening, he may not repeat it. However, if it can only cohere with the act of hadlaka or the witnessing of hadlaka, then it must be repeated at home. Reciting it during the mitzva of public hadlaka does not excuse its recitation over private hadlaka, as the two constitute completely separate mitzvot. If the berakha exists independently of the mitzva (and instead addresses the day), then any prior recitation would obviate a second mention.
