Siman 298

One recites a blessing over the light on the conclusion of Shabbat, because the light of fire was created then (Pesachim 54a). On the conclusion of Shabbat, the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave understanding to Adam the first man, similar to the example Above, and he brought two stones and ground them against one another—and light emerged from them (ibid.). And in Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer (chapter 20) it is stated: During the twilight of Shabbat, Adam the first man sat and pondered in his heart, saying, "Woe is me, perhaps the snake who deceived me on the eve of Shabbat will come." A pillar of fire was sent to him to illuminate for him and to guard from all evil. Adam saw the pillar of fire and rejoiced in his heart, and said, "Now I know that the Omnipresent is with me," and he extended his hands to the light of the fire and blessed "Who creates the illuminations of the fire." Thus far his words. And it further says there: When he moved his hands away from the fire, Adam said, "Now I know that the holy day is distinguished from the weekday, for one may not kindle fire on Shabbat," and he said, "Blessed is He who distinguishes between the holy and the profane." Thus far his words. (The Levush wrote that it was created on the conclusion of Shabbat, meaning on the first day when light was created, see there; and the Eliyah Zuta and Eliyah Rabbah have already contested his view, see there.)

One should not ask that if so, why do we not recite a blessing over other things that were created, for a candle is different, as it was forbidden on Shabbat and is as if it is newly created now (Magen Avraham, subsection 1, in the name of the Rashba). That is to say, even though the primary reason for the blessing on the candle at the conclusion of Shabbat is because it is the beginning of its creation, and only at the conclusion of Yom Kippur is the reason because it was forbidden all day—and therefore on Yom Kippur we specifically require light that rested, as written in siman 624, whereas on Shabbat we do not require light that rested—nevertheless, this reason also perforce exists on Shabbat. For is Shabbat any less than Yom Kippur? Behold, on Shabbat it was also forbidden, and Shabbat is more stringent than Yom Kippur, for Shabbat is punished by stoning and Yom Kippur is punished by kareth. Rather, this is what we are saying: that on Shabbat one does not need light that rested because of the reason that it is the beginning of its creation, but nevertheless, perforce, this reason also exists; therefore, they instituted a blessing over this and not over other things that are renewed. Furthermore, it appears to me that this is not a question at all, for here we recite a blessing over its renewal because we benefit from its light, just as it is with the light of the sun, over which we recite every day "Who forms the luminaries," but over other things that were renewed, a blessing is not applicable. On the contrary, the Tosafot in Pesachim (53b, s.v. "Ein") asked why we do not recite a blessing every time one benefits from light, for it is forbidden to benefit from this world without a blessing. And they answered that this is when the body benefits, and not merely benefit of the eye, and that which we recite a blessing over the sun is because it is renewed every day; see there. However, in any event, there is benefit in this, and it is not comparable to other things that were created. And although from everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world there is benefit for man, nevertheless, there is no comparison to the benefit of light, for the benefit is at the very moment that one kindles it.

We say in Berakhot (53b): One does not search for fire in the manner that one searches for mitzvot, and if one does not have fire—one does not need to search for it (Rashi). And the reason: for it has no connection to havdalah, as when Tisha B'Av falls on Saturday night—one recites the blessing over the fire even without havdalah, but rather they arranged this at the time of havdalah. And regarding the essence of its blessing, it is not so obligatory, for if it is because of the benefit—behold, we do not always recite a blessing over its benefit as I have written, and its primary reason is because the fire was created then, and also because it was forbidden all day, and what obligation is there in this. And it is no more of an obligation than the blessing of shehecheyanu, which we hold is optional (Eruvin end of chapter 3).

And know that the Rambam in chapter 29 and the Tur, who wrote this law, did not distinguish between Shabbat and Yom Kippur, and from the Rambam it is explicitly clear that it refers to both of them, see there. And the Tur, although he did not mention Yom Kippur in this siman, also in siman 624 he did not mention that on the conclusion of Yom Kippur one is obligated to seek out fire. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 1: "One recites the blessing over the candle... and does not need to seek it out. And these words apply to the conclusion of Shabbat, but regarding the conclusion of Yom Kippur—there are those who say that one seeks it out." Thus far his words. And this is the opinion of the Ra'avad which the Rashba brought in Berakhot there, and this is his wording: "But regarding fire that rested on Yom Kippur—it can be said that one seeks it out, for he recites a blessing to the Creator, may He be blessed, who distinguished for us between this day and other days, for the entire day it was forbidden to use it and now it is permitted." Thus far his words. And I do not understand, for is it not so on Shabbat as well? Does the fact that on Shabbat there is also the reason of the beginning of its creation make it any less?! And one must say regarding his intention, that granted that on Shabbat there is also this reason, nevertheless the essence of the enactment on Shabbat was not for this reason, which is why on Shabbat we do not require fire that rested. And furthermore it is difficult, for the blessing over the distinction of the day is surely recited in Havdalah: 'Who distinguishes between holy and profane' and everything is included, and it requires further study. And I am wondered that he did not bring that the Rambam and the Tur do not hold like the Ra'avad, and it requires further study. And one who does not have a cup for Havdalah, nevertheless when he sees fire—he recites the blessing 'Who creates the lights of the fire,' and similarly he recites the blessing over the spices, for they have no connection to the essence of Havdalah as I have written.

The blessing is "borei meorei ha'esh" and not "me'or ha'esh," and the reason the sages, of blessed memory, stated (ibid.) is because there are several types of light in the fire: a red, white, and greenish flame (Rashi). And we say "borei" and not "bara," for such is the language of the verse: "Who forms light and creates [borei] darkness" (ibid.). And if one said "me'or ha'esh" - he has not fulfilled his obligation (Bach), and according to this - the same law applies if he said "bara," because he deviated from the formula established by the sages. However, according to what I wrote above in siman 167, if he stated only the matter - he has fulfilled his obligation, for it is explained that if he said "berich rachamana" instead of the blessing of hamotzi - he has fulfilled his obligation, see there, and therefore here too if he said "bara" - he has fulfilled his obligation (ibid.), but with "me'or" - he has not fulfilled his obligation, for this is like one who speaks lies, as it implies that He created only one light, and in truth there are many lights as has been written (Eliyah Rabbah, and there is no need for the forced explanation of the Magen Avraham, see there). And it is customary to perform havdalah with a candle of wax (Magen Avraham), and the reason appears to be because it must be a torch, and this is made by several candles braided into one another, and this is not possible with oil or with tallow but only with wax, and the senses testify to this. (And in Pri Etz Chaim, Sha'ar HaShabbat, chapter 24, there is a reason for this according to Kabbalah, for "donag" [wax] is the gematria of 63, one of the permutations of the Name, blessed be He, and "sha'avah" [wax] is the 370 [sh'a] lights that shine for the letters Vav-He, see there and examine carefully.)

We say in Pesachim (103b) that a torch for havdalah is the choice way to perform the mitzvah. That is to say, one fulfills the obligation even with one candle, but for the choice way to perform the mitzvah—one needs a torch. And the reason is so that there will be a great light, and also through it the three illuminations are clearly recognized. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2 that there is one who says that if he does not have a torch—he must light another candle for the purpose of havdalah, besides the candle designated to illuminate the house; thus far his words, and the reason for this matter is not known to us. And in the Mordechai there he wrote the opposite, that if there is a candle in the house—one does not need to seek out a torch, see there, and the custom is like our teacher, the Beit Yosef. Furthermore, it is the custom that when there is no torch, one brings candle close to candle, and it is like a torch, and similarly two wicks in a candle close to one another—it is like a torch. And one should not make a torch from wood, for it is a disgrace, and also sometimes there is a smell of tar from them and it is repulsive. And a torch of wax is when they are braided into one another, and such is the simple custom and one should not change it. (And see Magen Avraham and Eliyah Rabbah)

One does not recite the blessing over the candle until they benefit from its light, meaning that one derives enjoyment from its light, and this is that one must be close enough to it until one can distinguish between a coin of this country and a coin of another country, which are equal in their size but the forms are different, and this requires good recognition. And it is customary to look at the palms of the hands and at the fingernails, and this is the wording of the Mordechai at the beginning of Yoma: "It is written in the Responsa of the Geonim… and that which we look at the fingernails—because one does not recite the blessing over the candle until they benefit from its light, until one feels the brightness of the light of the Havdalah candle, and also because they remember the fingernails of Adam the first man." Thus far his words. And in Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer (chapter 20) it says: "He stretches out his hands to the light of the fire and looks at his fingernails, which are whiter than the body, and says 'Blessed etc.'" Thus far his words.

This is the wording of the Tur: "One gazes at the fingernails to see that one can derive benefit from it and distinguish between one coin and another coin, just as one distinguishes between the fingernail and the flesh… and the early ones were accustomed to look at the lines of the palms… for there is a sign in the lines of the palm of the hand to be blessed by it. And there is another custom among us to look at the fingernails, and they say because they are always fruitful and multiply." (And fruitfulness and multiplication are a sign of blessing). And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that one should look at the fingernails of the right hand and hold the cup in the left hand, and one should fold the fingers into the hand so that he then sees the fingernails with the palms at once, and he should not see the surface of the fingers that are on the inside. Thus far his words. And the thumb is folded into the hand so that it is not seen outside, and the custom is to fold the fingers into the hand as has been written, and afterwards one extends them and sees their back (Magen Avraham, subsection 5). And the customs of Israel are Torah, and it is founded upon the Zohar, and it appears that only with the right hand should one do all these and not with the left (and so wrote the Peri Etz Chaim there and the Machatzit HaShekel and the Shaarei Teshuva).

And even though we do not require light that rested as on Yom Kippur—nevertheless, we require a lamp with which no transgression was performed, meaning that it was not lit on Shabbat. And it is not only necessary if an Israelite lit it, but even if a non-Jew lit it, for whom it is permitted, nevertheless, since regarding this light, had an Israelite lit it there would be a transgression in this—one does not recite the blessing over it, and even post facto he has not fulfilled the obligation (Magen Avraham, subsection 6). And a lamp that was lit permissibly on Shabbat, such as for a dangerously ill person by an Israelite, or for one who is not dangerously ill by a non-Jew, and similarly for a woman in childbirth when they lit it—one recites the blessing over it, for behold there is no transgression here, and on the contrary, there is a mitzvah here of saving a life. And this is the distinction from a lamp that a non-Jew lit, for although there is no transgression here—nevertheless, there is also no mitzvah here. And anything that was lit on Shabbat not for a mitzvah—we call it "performed a transgression," even though it is not a literal transgression, but rather meaning that regarding the lamp itself there is a trace of transgression had an Israelite lit it. And one does not recite the blessing over a lamp that was lit before an idol, even if it was burning from yesterday or they lit it on Motzaei Shabbat—because it is forbidden for benefit. And there is one who says that when a non-Jew lit for the needs of a patient who is not dangerously ill—it is called "not having rested from a labor of transgression," and only regarding a dangerously ill patient—it is permitted whether an Israelite lit it or a non-Jew lit it, but for a patient who is not dangerously ill where the non-Jew lit it—it is like one who lights for himself (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 10), and it is not definitive.

A non-Jew who lit a candle on Motza'ei Shabbat from the candle of an Israelite—one recites the blessing over it, and this is simple. And similarly, an Israelite who lit a candle from the candle of a non-Jew who lit it on Shabbat—one recites the blessing over it, for even though a transgression was committed with the first candle, nevertheless, he now recites the blessing over the additional permitted light. And nevertheless, in such a case where a non-Jew lit from the candle of a non-Jew—one does not recite the blessing over it, for we decree on account of the first one; and since it is only on account of a decree, it is therefore permitted ex post facto (Magen Avraham, subsection 11). And similarly, an Israelite who lit a candle from a candle of idol worship—it is also permitted (ibid., subsection 8), and even though its flame is forbidden for benefit, that is when it is attached to the coal and not when it is separated from it, for a flame has no substance. However, ab initio it is forbidden to light from its flame, for it is forbidden to benefit from it. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 10, who wrote in the name of Ma'aseh Rokeach that a non-Jew who lit a candle for a sick person from his own bonfire—it is forbidden to recite the blessing over it, and similarly when he produced fire on Motza'ei Shabbat from wood and stones—it is forbidden, see there, and the matters are perplexing. However, even according to the Magen Avraham, ex post facto it is permitted, and while the first ruling can be pushed aside as a case of a non-Jew from a non-Jew—though in my humble opinion when he lit for a sick person it is different—nevertheless, one could say so. But regarding the second ruling, I do not see any prohibition in it, and so it appears to me from the words of the Talmidei Rabbenu Yonah, see there. And that which they said: "If one was walking outside the city, if the majority are Cutheans—it is forbidden," this is because we fear they lit it before nightfall, but when he lit it at night—why should it be forbidden? This requires further study and look closely into it.)

If one was walking outside the city and saw a light and can make use of its light, but does not know whose light it is: if in the city the majority are non-Jews—one does not recite the blessing over it, for we fear that they lit it before nightfall, and it is a lamp that was lit in a prohibited manner, as has been explained. And if the majority are Israel, or even half and half—one recites the blessing over it, for this is not among the prohibitions for which we require a majority specifically. However, conversely, we do not follow the laws of prohibitions in this to say "anything fixed is considered as half and half," which would make it permitted even with a majority of non-Jews, for ultimately this light belongs to the non-Jew, and what benefit would the law of "fixed" provide for this, as this law is not similar to prohibitions. (See Magen Avraham subsection 13, and according to what I wrote it works out well). And a proof for this is from the Yerushalmi (Chapter 8 of Berakhot), and this is its wording: "An alleyway that is entirely Cutheans and one Israelite dwells within it, and the light emerged from there—one recites the blessing," see there. And the reason is that since he saw that the light emerged from there—it is certainly the Israelite's, and it is not relevant to follow the majority in this. And so too conversely, an alleyway that is entirely Israelites and one Cuthean dwells there, and he saw that the light emerged from there—it is certainly his, and one does not recite the blessing over it. (And the Eliyah Rabbah subsection 17 wrote that this contradicts our Talmud and entered into forced explanations, and so too in the Tosefet Shabbat, but in my humble opinion the matters are simple, for this is not a comparison to prohibitions, and examine this well).

It is stated in Berakhot (53a): If one was walking outside the city near sunset on Shabbat, and saw one walking with a lamp in his hand: if the one walking is an adult—certainly he is a non-Jew, and one does not recite the blessing over this light when it grows dark, for an Israelite would not light while it is still day. And if the one walking is a minor, he investigates him: if he is an Israelite—one recites the blessing over it, and if he is a non-Jew—one does not recite the blessing over it, see there, and all the poskim did not cite this. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 13, who addressed this and answered with difficulty, see there; and in my humble opinion it seems they did well to omit it, for seemingly it is difficult: even if the child is an Israelite, how can we recite the blessing over it, for he lit it with a prohibition while it was still day. Rather, one must say that it was slightly before dark, and it is possible that it was already night, but it is not the way of an Israelite to be early; and if so, who can determine this measure precisely? Therefore the poskim omitted it.)

Over light that emanates from wood and from stones—one recites the blessing over it, for Adam the first man recited the blessing over this fire of stones, as I wrote in section 1. However, at the conclusion of Yom Kippur—one does not recite the blessing over it, for then we require light that was kindled from the eve of Yom Kippur. And similarly, one does not recite the blessing at the conclusion of Yom Kippur over a candle that an Israelite kindled from a non-Jew; even though on the conclusion of Shabbat it is permitted as has been explained, nevertheless on Yom Kippur—it specifically requires that it was kindled from the eve of Yom Kippur, and it will be explained in siman 624, see there.

Coals that are burning so much that if one were to insert a splinter between them it would ignite—one recites the blessing over them when one can benefit from their light as from a lamp. And specifically when they are made to illuminate, for one does not recite the blessing over light that was ignited for another purpose and not to illuminate. Therefore, one does not recite the blessing over the light of a furnace at the beginning of the burning of the bricks, for then it is made for the sake of the bricks and not to illuminate; but after they have been burned—it is made to illuminate and one recites the blessing over it. And so too anything similar to this, for since the blessing is over the light that illuminates for us for our needs—we require that it be such a light. And one should not ask according to this how we recite the blessing over the lamp of havdalah that we make, which immediately after havdalah we extinguish, and behold it is not made to illuminate but for the sake of the mitzvah of havdalah. For it is not so, for on the contrary, since we make it for the mitzvah of havdalah—perforce our intention is to illuminate, for if not so, one does not fulfill the obligation with it; and in truth our intention is to illuminate for the time, and that is for the time of havdalah. However, for the time of havdalah—our intention is to illuminate, and this is its mitzvah.

The lamp of a beit din — it is not called "made to illuminate," but rather for the honor of the beit knesset, unless there is an important person there — then it is called "made to illuminate," for they lit it so that it would illuminate for the important person, and if there is no important person there — one does not recite the blessing over it. And some say the opposite, that when there is an important person there — one does not recite the blessing over it, because it was made for his honor and not to illuminate, and when there is no important person there — it is made to illuminate, and one recites the blessing over it. And if there is a shamash eating there in a room adjacent to the beit knesset, and the room has a window from the beit knesset — one recites the blessing over it, for behold it illuminates for the shamash, provided that the moon is not shining there, for when there is the light of the moon — he can eat by the light of the moon. And it seems to me that now we recite the blessing over the lamps of the beit knesset, as it is known that their intention is to illuminate for the people. And likewise, one does not recite the blessing over the lamp of the deceased or of grooms, which are made for honor and not to illuminate. And specifically such a deceased person that if they had taken him out during the day — they would also have lit a lamp for his honor, for then even at night one does not recite the blessing. But if during the day they would not have lit a lamp before him — one recites the blessing over this when they take him out on Motzaei Shabbat with a lamp, but regarding a groom — it is always for his honor as is known, and in every case one does not recite the blessing.

It is stated in the Gemara (ibid.): If they were sitting in the beit midrash and light was brought before them: Beit Shammai say each and every one blesses for himself because of the neglect of the beit midrash, for if they all cease from studying to hear the blessing from one—they will be neglected from Torah study; and Beit Hillel say—one blesses for everyone, because of "in the multitude of people is the King's glory," for when everyone answers amen to the blessing of the one—there is in this the King's glory, and therefore they were not concerned for the neglect of the beit midrash. And it is understood that all the poskim ruled like Beit Hillel, for Beit Shammai in the place of Beit Hillel—is not a teaching. And according to this, one must wonder about our custom, where there is no neglect of the beit midrash, and everyone hears the havdalah from the mouth of the one reciting the blessing, why regarding the blessing of "meorei ha-esh" is the custom that each one blesses for himself, the opposite of the words of Beit Hillel, and all the more so since by us neglect of the beit midrash is not relevant. And perhaps the custom was established according to the Tosefta chapter 5 of Berakhot, where it is recorded to the contrary—that Beit Shammai say one blesses for everyone, and Beit Hillel say each and every one blesses for himself, see there. (And even though according to the Tosefta they only said this regarding the beit midrash, it is possible to say that they hold that they always hold thus, because it is considered like a birkat ha-nehenin, where one does not fulfill the obligation for his fellow, just as over the besamim each one blesses. And even though even regarding birkat ha-nehenin, when the one reciting the blessing also benefits—he can fulfill the obligation for others, nevertheless they hold that this is preferable; and that which the Tosefta mentions "beit midrash"—is because of Beit Shammai. And nevertheless, it requires further study, since it is against the Shas, and perhaps because our light does not reach everyone at once, and it would be an interruption.)

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 13 that a blind person does not recite the blessing "who creates the lights of the fire" since he does not derive benefit from the light. And it is not similar to the blessing "who forms the luminaries" which a blind person recites, as written in siman 69, for they are not similar at all as we explained in siman 263 section 9, see there; however, the rest of havdalah—he must recite or hear. And the Rashba in the Responsa (siman 739) wrote in the name of the Geonim that a blind person does not perform havdalah at all, but rather relies on the havdalah in the prayer, see there. And it is not understood at all why he is exempt from havdalah over the cup, and perhaps there was a tradition in the hands of the Geonim that they did not institute havdalah over the cup except when there is also the blessing of the candle, and it requires further study, and one should be concerned for their words, and the blind person should not perform havdalah himself but rather hear it from another.

It is stated in the Yerushalmi (ibid.): A candle within one's lap, or within a pnas, or within an aspaklaria—if he sees the flame but does not make use of its light (because he stands far away), or if he makes use of its light but does not see the flame (because he stands to the side), one does not recite the blessing over it until he sees the flame and makes use of its light; see there. And they raised an objection against the Rashba, who wrote that an ashashit is considered like seeing the flame, and the proof is that it is forbidden to recite Keriat Shema facing ervah in an ashashit because of "and He shall see no unseemly thing in you," as written in siman 75, but a pnas is not considered seeing the flame; thus far his words. And this is against the Yerushalmi (Beit Yosef). In my humble opinion, it is not difficult at all, for an aspaklaria is not an ashashit, as an ashashit is a glass lanterna, and an aspaklaria is a spiegel, and this is explained at the end of tractate Kelim; see there. And a pnas is what is called a lampa. There are those through which one sees the flame, such as one made of glass, and there are those through which one does not see, such as one made of another material; and so it is with an aspaklaria—sometimes thus and sometimes thus. And the Rashba is dealing with a pnas where one does not see the flame, and the Yerushalmi is dealing with where one sees it, but through an ashashit one always sees. (And the Magen Avraham, subsection 20, was forced to say that it teaches distinct cases; see there in Machatzit HaShekel, but this is not necessary; and examine this carefully) (The Aruch explained pnas as lampa; see there).