Chanukah Lights

Introduction

A peculiarity of the Mishnah is that there is no maseches devoted to discussing the laws of Chanukah, as opposed to other mitzvos derabbanan, such as Purim and Eruvin. There are several mishnayos that mention Chanukah, all tangentially, and in only one of these does it refer to the Chanukah lamp. A Mishnah in Bikkurim (1:6) states that the last time for bringing bikkurim to the Beis Hamikdash every year is on Chanukah. A Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah (1:3) states that beis din sent out messengers to advise people which day was Rosh Chodesh so that they could observe the holidays on the correct day. The Mishnah teaches that these messengers informed people when Rosh Chodesh Kislev was so that they could observe Chanukah on the correct day.

Another instance is a Mishnah in Bava Kama (6:6) that states that someone who placed a lamp outside his house is obligated to pay damages should an animal knock over the lamp and start a fire. However, Rabbi Yehudah states that if the lamp was someone’s neir Chanukah, he is exempt from paying damages since he had permission to place the lamp this low. It should be noted that only this last Mishnah is making any reference to the mitzvah of kindling the Chanukah lights.

The Gemara (Shabbos 21b) discusses whether this latter Mishnah proves that it is a mitzvah to place the Chanukah light near the ground. A subsequent passage of Gemara (Shabbos 22a) concludes that the neir Chanukah cannot be placed more than 20 amos above street level. If the menorah is placed more than 20 amos above street level, people will not notice the neir Chanukah, and publicizing the miracle will not be achieved.

Maseches Shabbos

Notwithstanding the lack of a maseches devoted to the laws of Chanukah, there is extensive discussion about it in the Gemara. The second chapter of Maseches Shabbos,Bameh Madlikin, which discusses the kindling of the Shabbos lights, discusses the laws of Chanukah. The Mishnah there explains which wicks and oils may be used for the Shabbos lights, and the Gemara states that the same wicks and oils may be used to kindle the Chanukah lights. Interestingly, when the Rif begins discussing the laws of Chanukah in his halachos to Maseches Shabbos, he has a subheading about neir Chanukah, something very unusual for him.

Using the Chanukah lights

Although sometimes the laws governing the Shabbos lights and those regarding the Chanukah lights are identical, there are many applications for which the laws are very different. For example, halacha requires that we use the Shabbos lights and that there should be light everywhere in the house that someone walks on Shabbos. However, the amora’im dispute whether one may use the Chanukah lights. Rav Huna and Rav Chisda permit using the neir Chanukah, whereas Rav prohibits it. Rava (Shabbos 21b) adds, that according to Rav’s opinion, one is required to have a lamp near the Chanukah lights, which we call the shamash. Rava rules that if a significant fire, such as an active fireplace, is near the Chanukah lights, there is no need to also have a shamash since the light of the fire is sufficient. Even so, for a prominent person, who would not use a bonfire or fireplace as his source of light, a shamash should be lit, notwithstanding that there is a bonfire.

Among the rishonim we find several opinions as to why it is forbidden to use the Chanukah lights. Some explain that this is because of a concept called bizuy mitzvah, treating a mitzvah object in a contemptuous manner. The source from a pasuk teaches that it is forbidden to perform the mitzvah of kisuy hadam by pushing the earth with your foot. The mitzvah should be done by picking up the earth with your hand and placing it atop the blood.

Another situation that violates this rule is to dispose of an object that was used for a mitzvah, such as worn-out sechach or tzitzis, by putting them in the regular trash. There is no requirement to place these items in sheimos (genizah), because they have no sanctity, but they should not be treated with disdain (Shabbos 21a-b); placing them in the regular garbage is demeaning for an object that was once used to perform a mitzvah.

Returning to the laws of neir Chanukah, the Ba’al Hamaor explains that it is prohibited to use them because of the law of bizuy mitzvah, and then explains that this is true only if one uses them for his own benefit. In his opinion, it is permitted to perform a mitzvah using the light of the neir Chanukah.

The Rosh seems to hold an approach similar to that of the Ba’al Hamaor. He rules that one may not use the light of the menorah to perform a permanent job or other work that he considers inappropriate. It is permitted to do something temporary when does not give the impression that he is treating the mitzvah disdainfully.

All halachic authorities agree that (1) there is a concept called bizuy mitzvah and (2) that it is probably prohibited min haTorah. However other rishonim do not consider this an adequate reason to explain why someone cannot benefit from the neiros Chanukah. Covering the blood of shechitah by kicking the soil rather than using your hand to perform the mitzvah demonstrates disdain for a mitzvah. But why is it disdainful to use the Chanukah lamp light to read or to perform a mitzvah? Even using this light to eat dinner does not seem to be treating these lamps with scorn! Thus, it is understandable that other rishonim propose other reasons to explain the prohibition against using the Chanukah lights.

Rashi (Shabbos 21b) explains that the reason we cannot use the Chanukah lamp is so that it is obvious that it was kindled to fulfill a mitzvah.

Yet another approach is that, since the neiros Chanukah are kindled to represent the lights kindled in the Beis Hamikdash, just as those lights may not be used for personal benefit, so, too, the lights of the menorah should not be used (Ran).

Differences in halacha

Are there any halachic differences among these various opinions? The Beis Halevi (commentary to the Torah, page 56) explains that there are. In his opinion, Rashi holds that the prohibition not to use the Chanukah lights is limited to the members of the household who kindled them for the mitzvah, whereas according to the Ran (and certainly those who prohibit its use because of bizuy mitzvah) no one may use the light of the Chanukah lamps.

Rav Ya’akov Molcho (Shu’t Ya’akov Molcho #49, quoted by Birkei Yosef 673:5) permits using the light of the neiros Chanukah to look up a halachic question about the neiros Chanukah themselves. Since this is a Chanukah need, it is permitted. It would seem that this opinion could hold like Rashi that we want it demonstrated that these lamps are designated for a mitzvah — using them to research a question about their observance does not take away from that acknowledgement. Alternatively, Rav Molcho could hold like those rishonim who prohibit using the lights because of bizuy mitzvah, and using them to research a Chanukah question is not a bizuy mitzvah. However, according to the approach of the Ran that it is because the Chanukah lights should be treated like the lights of the menorah in the Beis Hamikdash, one would not be allowed to use the Chanukah lights to research a halachic inquiry just as it is forbidden to use the Beis Hamikdash menorah lights for this purpose.

If they went out

The Gemara (Shabbos 21a-b) discusses the following question: If the Chanukah lights were all set up properly with the correct wicks and oil such that they should burn just fine, but for some reason they went out anyway before the required time that they should be lit, is one halachically required to rekindle the lights? This is referred to as kavsah zakuk la, if it becomes extinguished, he is obligated to rekindle it (Rav Huna) or kavsah ein zakuk la, if it becomes extinguished, he is not obligated to rekindle it (Rav and Rav Chisda). The halacha is kavsah ein zakuk la (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 673:2).

In a responsum related to this issue, the Rashba was asked: After reciting his berachos and kindling his Chanukah light, someone was trying to have it burn clearer. While doing this, he extinguished his lamp. Is he required to rekindle it, and, if he does, does he recite the berachos again? The Rashba rules that he is not required to rekindle his lamps, and, should he choose to rekindle them, he should not recite any berachos (Shu’t Harashba 1:539, quoted by Ran).

When to light?

The Gemara (21b) also states that the mitzvah is to kindle the lights from “sunset” until people are no longer walking in the marketplace. In earlier days, after it got dark, people basically remained home – there were no street lights. The Gemara states that there was an ethnic group, called the Tarmudai, who would remain in the streets selling people kindling wood. Someone who discovered that he was short of kindling wood to start his home hearth would go out in the street to purchase kindling wood from the Tarmudai. The Tarmudai were the last people on the unlit streets; when they disappeared, there was no longer any mitzvah to kindle the Chanukah lights, since no one was outdoors for whom to publicize the miracle. Thus, someone who neglected to kindle the Chanukah lights after the Tarmudai went home did not fulfill any mitzvah; if they recited a beracha, it would be a beracha in vain.

The halachic authorities note that since today people do go outdoors much later at night, there is a mitzvah to kindle Chanukah lights later in the evening, should one be unable to kindle them as it gets dark.

How many?

The Gemara presents a lengthy discussion regarding how many lights one should kindle oneach night of Chanukah. In halachic conclusion, the rule is that the mitzvah requires that one kindle only one light each night. However, the Gemara also presents mehadrin methods of fulfilling the mitzvah. In practice, there are two approaches:

Ashkenazim — each individual kindles the number of lights corresponding to the night of Chanukah.

Sephardim — the household as a whole kindles only one menorah, again with the number of lights corresponding to the night of the festival.

Public kindling

The Gemara (21b) states that it is a mitzvah to kindle the Chanukah lights outside. In general, this approach is observed today only in Eretz Yisrael, whereas in chutz la’aretz the accepted practice is to kindle the Chanukah lights in a window that can be seen from the public area. The poskim explain that, at the time of the Gemara the primary pirsumei nisa was for those outside. In chutz la’aretz today, the primary pirsumei nisa is for the members of one’s household (see Rema, Orach Chayim 672:2 and commentaries thereon). A consequence of this is that, in our generation, should one return home late at night, when no one is in the street but his household members are awake, he may kindle his Chanukah lights then.

What berachos?

What berachos does one recite prior to kindling neir Chanukah? The Gemara (23a) states that, on the first night of Chanukah, one recites three berachos, Lehadlik neir shel Chanukah, She’asah Nissim and Shehecheyanu. On the other nights, we recite only the first two. The Gemara teaches that someone who is not kindling the lights and is not fulfilling the mitzvah by having someone kindle the lights for him, recites the second and third beracha (on the first night) upon seeing the lights in someone else’s home. After the first night of Chanukah, someone who is not kindling his own menorah recites the beracha of She’asah Nissim upon seeing someone else’s lights burning.

The Gemara proceeds to ask how we can recite a beracha on neiros Chanukah that states that You Hashem commanded us concerning this mitzvah, when the mitzvah to kindle neiros Chanukah is a rabbinic requirement, not a Torah mitzvah. How can we say vetzivanu when Hashem did not command us? The Gemara concludes that, since the Torah commanded us to observe what Chazal teach us, when they command us to keep a mitzvah this is equivalent to the Torah commanding us – hence the wording vetzivanu is fully appropriate.

I saw an interesting question raised by Rav Meir Mazuz, the late rosh yeshiva and posek of the Tunisian community in Eretz Yisrael. As we learned at the very beginning of our article, the entire discussion of the laws of neir Chanukah is a tangential discussion in the second chapter of maseches Shabbos, whose focus is on the details of the mitzvah of lighting lamps for Shabbos. Since kindling Shabbos lights is also a mitzvah miderabbanan, Rav Mazuz asked: why does the Gemara (Shabbos 23a) discuss the wording of the beracha on a mitzvah derabbanan when discussing the mitzvah of kindling neir Chanukah? Why not ask the identical question about the beracha recited when kindling the Shabbos lights? This question should be asked first, since the entire chapter of mishnayos discusses kindling Shabbos lights, whereas kindling Chanukah lights is a side point discussed in the Gemara that is not mentioned in the Mishnah?

Rav Mazuz suggests that, at the time of the Gemara, no beracha at all was recited on kindling Shabbos lights – this practice developed later, during the era of the geonim.

House and two courtyards

The Gemara discusses a case of a house that opens onto two different courtyards, each of which has a separate entrance to the street. This passage of Gemara is based on what is called mar’is ayin, raising suspicion that one violated halacha. Another way of describing this is: “Oh, my goodness, what will the neighbors say?”

As mentioned above, in the time of the Gemara, kindling Chanukah lights was primarily to publicize the miracle of Chanukah to those outside the house. Every house and every courtyard had a lamp kindled that could be seen from the street. The Gemara rules that someone whose house opened on two different courtyards is required to kindle a menorah in both places. If he kindled only one, the people in the street that passes the other courtyard might think that he neglected to observe the mitzvah of kindling Chanukah lights, which is a violation of mar’is ayin.

Based on this passage, the Beis Halevi questions a ruling that we quoted above, in which it was concluded that kavsah ein zakuk lah – if the lamp went out after being properly prepared, halacha does not require you to rekindle it. The Beis Halevi questions why he is not required to kindle it because of mar’is ayin, the neighbors will think that he did not kindle a light?

Actually, this question is recorded earlier (Sha’arei Teshuvah 673:7, quoting Shu’t Shevus Yaakov 3:48) who answers that should the lamp go out early, he must leave the oil and the wick in place until the required time is passed. This way, those who see that no lamp is burning will also, upon inspection, see that there was a lamp set up, and realize that this was a case of kavsah, and that he indeed fulfilled his halachic requirement. (The Beis Halevi himself provides a different answer to this question, requiring that you rekindle the lamp because of mar’is ayin, notwithstanding that kavsah ein zakuk lah. He notes that his position is at odds with what is written in the halachic authorities, all of whom imply that, since we paskin kavsah ein zakuk lah, there is no obligation to rekindle a lamp if it was burning properly and then subsequently went out before a half hour transpired.)

Mixing lights

Some authorities contend that you should not kindle some of your lights from wax and others from oil on the same night, because people will think that this is two different people lighting (Shu’t Shaar Efrayim #39). However, the Birkei Yosef (673:2) disagrees, noting that there is no mar’is ayin since you are not required to kindle more than one light.

Women and neir Chanukah

The Gemara rules that women are obligated in neir Chanukah, because of the reason that they were also included in the miracle. Nevertheless, several prominent authorities rule that a married woman should not light if her husband is home and kindles the menorah (Mishnah Berurah 671:9); others contend that even single women should not kindle the menorah if there are men kindling in the house (Chasam Sofer, commentary to Maseches Shabbos 21b s. v. Vehamehadrin; however, cf. Shu’t Sha’ar Efrayim #42).

Conclusion

The Gemara (Shabbos 23b) states that someone ragil beneir will merit sons who are Torah scholars. Rashi explains that this refers both to the lights of Shabbos and those of Chanukah, whereas the Rosh mentions only those of Chanukah. The Gra says that the Rosh also meant the Shabbos lights, whereas the Maharitz Chayes disagrees.

Some authorities contend that ragil beneir includes having a nice menorah (Birkei Yosef 673:7, quoting earlier poskim).

Joining Gentiles

Question #1: Client’s celebration

A non-Jewish client is marrying off his daughter and expects his business associates to attend the reception. Knowing him, he expects me to spend a considerable amount of time there. Is this permitted, and, while there, may I eat or drink something that is kosher?

Question #2: Meeting a new client

My boss asked me to attend a lunch meeting with a new client in a non-kosher restaurant. Is this permitted, and, if it is, may I order a cup of coffee or a fruit plate?

Question #3: Company picnics and parties

May I attend the company end-of-year parties and picnics?

Answer:

Each of the above questions involve situations that may arise in today’s professional work environment. The Gemara teaches that the injunctions created by Chazal are dearer to Hashem than Torah laws. In this context, we can explain the vast halachic literature devoted to the many prohibitions created to protect the Jewish people from major sins. These include bishul akum, the prohibition against eating food cooked by a non-Jew, pas akum,which, under certain circumstances, prohibits bread baked by a non-Jew, and sheichar akum, which prohibits drinking certain types of beer in a non-Jew’s home or tavern.

The Rambam codifies these laws as follows: “There are activities that have no basis in the Torah that our Sages prohibited… to make sure that Jews and non-Jews do not … intermarry. These are the prohibitions: They prohibited drinking with them even when there is no concern about sacramental wine [yayin nesech]. They prohibited eating their bread or what they have cooked even when there is no concern that there are non-kosher ingredients or flavors added. What is an example of this prohibition? A person may not drink in a gathering of non-Jews even cooked wine that is not prohibited [as stam yeinam, wine handled by a non-Jew], or even if the Jew drinks only what he brought himself. If most of the assemblage is Jewish, it is permitted. It is prohibited to drink beer made from dates or figs or anything similar. But this prohibition [drinking beer] is prohibited only where it is sold. If he brought the beer home, it is permitted to drink it there, because the primary reason for the decree was that he should not come to eat a meal at a non-Jew’s house” (Rambam, Hilchos Ma’achalos Asuros 17:9-10).

Why is beer different?

There is a very obvious question here: The three other prohibitions mentioned here because of concerns of social interaction – bishul akum, pas akum and stam yeinam – are not dependent upon where you are. Consuming these items is prohibited, regardless of your location. However, the prohibition concerning the beer, as well as the prohibition of eating and drinking with non-Jews, applies only in the non-Jews’ venue.

Among the rishonim, we find several approaches to explain this question. I will present just one approach, that of the Tosafos Rid (Avodah Zarah 65b), who explains that, in the instances of wine, cooked food and bread – the main concern is that you will find the foods served by the non-Jew to be very tasty, and this eventually might lead to inappropriate social interactions. However, in the instance of beer, the concern is not the food, but the socializing – and prohibiting drinking beer where the non-Jew lives and works is a sufficient safeguard to discourage the inappropriate activity.

I have written previously many times on the topics of bishul akum, pas akum, stam yeinam and sheichar akum that are mentioned in this Rambam. I have also written about the questions germane to mar’is ayin implicit in several of the opening questions. However, I have never written on what the Rambam prohibits here: not to drink kosher beverages “in a gathering of non-Jew’s,” nor “to eat a meal at a non-Jew’s house.”

This ruling of the Rambam is subsequently quoted and accepted by all the halachic authorities, including Tur, Shulchan Aruch, Derisha, Shach, Taz, Pri Chodosh, Or Hachayim, Darkei Teshuvah, Chasam Sofer and Igros Moshe.

Rambam’s source

There is much discussion among later authorities attempting to identify the source in Chazal whence the Rambam inferred this prohibition. Among the acharonim, we find several suggestions for the Rambam’s ruling, including mention of some passages of Gemara. Let us examine these sources.

The first instance cited is based on a Mishnah that prohibits many types of financial dealings with an idolater on the days near a pagan holiday, out of concern that he will thank his deity for the business. If this happens, the Jew has “caused” the pagan to worship idols. Bear in mind that being a “light unto the nations” precludes causing someone else to violate his commandment.

The conclusion of this Mishnah states, “When an idolater makes a celebration in honor of his son, it is prohibited to deal only with that man on that day (Avodah Zarah 8a). This conclusion is cited by the halachic authorities (Rambam, Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 9:5; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 148:7).

The Gemara adds the following to the discussion: “Rabbi Yishmael said: Jews living in chutz la’aretz are idol worshippers who think that they are acting properly. Why is this? An idolater makes a party to celebrate a family event and invites all the Jews in his town to attend – even if they eat their own food and drink their own beverages and their own waiter serves them, the Torah treats it as if they ate from the offerings of idols.” This passage is also cited by the halachic authorities (Rambam, Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 9:15; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 152:1).

At the end of his censure, Rabbi Yishmael quotes the Torah as the source for his ruling: And he calls to you and you eat from his slaughter (Shemos 34:15). The halachic authorities disagree whether this quote demonstrates that this prohibition is min haTorah (Taz, Yoreh Deah 152:1) or only rabbinic (Nekudos Hakesef ad locum).

A potential difference in halacha resulting from this dispute is whether one may attend the event if missing it might antagonize the host (mipnei eivah). The rishonim note that, despite the fact that the Mishnah, quoted above, prohibits dealing with a non-Jew near his holiday, this prohibition does not apply in our day since the non-Jews among whom we live do not worship idols (Rishonim to Avodah Zarah; Tur, Yoreh Deah 148). In addition, even in a situation in which the Mishnah’s concerns are applicable, it is permitted when there are concerns of eivah (Tur, Yoreh Deah 148). The Derisha conjectures whether the prohibition against attending a party applies in a situation of eivah (Derisha, Yoreh Deah 152:1). As we will soon see, Rav Moshe Feinstein ruled leniently in this last issue.

Achashveirosh’s party

A different source cited as basis of the Rambam’s ruling is a passage of Gemara which states that the reason why the Jews in the era of Haman deserved to be destroyed (before they did the teshuvah brought about by Mordechai and Esther) was because they enjoyed the party thrown by Achashveirosh (Megillah 12a).

Several later authorities question whether these sources are indeed the origins of the Rambam’s prohibition (cf. Lechem Mishneh; Mirkeves Hamishneh; Aruch Hashulchan; Tzafnas Panei’ach). However, whether or not we know the source of the Rambam’s ruling, all authorities accept it to be binding.

How did the Rambam ascertain that this prohibition exists only when a majority of the people at the meal are not Jewish? The following passage of Gemara is quoted as a possible source: Shmuel, the great amora, and Avleit, a non-Jewish friend of his who is mentioned frequently by Chazal (Shabbos 129a, 156b; Avodah Zarah 30a; Yerushalmi, Shabbos 3:3 and Beitzah 2:5; Midrash Lekach Tov, Parshas Shoftim), were eating a meal together when they were brought some yayin mevushal, wine that had been cooked. Avleit, who was familiar with his friend’s Jewish customs, adjusted himself so that he would not touch the wine and prohibit it for Shmuel. Shmuel then explained to Avleit that the prohibition against using wine handled by a non-Jew does not apply to yayin mevushal. The question raised by some authorities is, how could Shmuel have been enjoying a repast together with Avleit when it is prohibited to eat a meal or drink wine at a non-Jew’s house? The Lechem Mishneh answers that since only Shmuel and Avleit were eating, there was no non-Jewish majority at the meal and, therefore, it was permitted (Avodah Zarah 30a).

However, this argument is weak for a few reasons, as noted by several later authorities. For one matter, there is nothing to indicate that Shmuel and Avleit were at a non-Jew’s venue? Furthermore, is two people eating together considered a party (Aruch Hashulchan)? We would usually assume that a “party” involves a large number of people — although from Esther’s party, mentioned in the Purim story, we can derive that three is not only company but also a party.

In this context, Rav Moshe Feinstein was asked the following question: May a yeshiva conduct a parlor meeting in the home of a non-Jew? Rav Moshe prohibits this although he permits attending a personal celebration of a non-Jew conducted in a non-Jewish venue where it is difficult to provide a good excuse for one’s absence. Rav Moshe permits this so as not to antagonize the non-Jew. Since this is why one may attend, Rav Moshe permits drinking kosher beverages, and presumably would also permit eating kosher food. However, this does not permit conducting a parlor meeting in a non-Jew’s home, since Jews are choosing to conduct this celebration there (Shu’t Igros Moshe, Yoreh Deah 2:117).

Client’s celebration

At this point let us examine one of our opening questions: “ A non-Jewish client is marrying off his daughter and expects his business associates to attend the reception. Knowing him, he expects me to spend a considerable amount of time there. Is this permitted, and, while there, may I eat or drink something that is kosher?”

According to Rav Moshe Feinstein, I may attend the wedding and eat and drink kosher food while there if my absence might antagonize the client.

Company picnics and parties

May I attend the company end-of-year parties and outings?

The reasons why it might be permitted to attend these functions include offending people and loss of livelihood. It would seem to be permitted if you do not eat or drink there with everyone else. A talmid chacham I know went to the company’s annual picnic and spent his time while there on the ball fields. The other employees assumed that he was a baseball enthusiast, while his family was surprised to discover that he owned sneakers and a baseball glove!

Mostly Jews

Here is another heter that sometimes applies: Because the Rambam wrote, “If most of the assemblage is Jewish,” the Pri Chadash permits this when there are more Jewish attendees than non-Jews.

Conclusion

We are meant to be “a light onto the nations,” which charges us with the responsibility to act in a manner that we create a kiddush Hashem. However, Chazal clearly felt that there is a difference between acting as a role model while behaving according to Hashem’s wishes, and social interactions, which can lead to undesirable outcomes.

image_print