Siman 671

And because the miracle occurred with the lamps, they instituted to kindle lamps every night in order to mention the miracle (Tur). Every person must be very careful with them. Even a poor person who is supported by charity must beg or sell his garment and buy oil to kindle. For regarding anything that is pirsumei nisa, the obligation is even upon a poor person, like the four cups (Maggid Mishneh and Beit Yosef). And one who is careful in this will have sons who are talmidei chachamim (Gemara ibid. 23b), as it is written: "For a mitzvah is a lamp, and Torah is light." That is to say: by the merit of the lamp of the mitzvah of Shabbat and of Chanukah, he will merit the light of Torah.

It appears that regarding the Chanukah lamp and the four cups—there is no measure for their expenditure. For even though in all mitzvot there is a measure of up to a third for a mitzvah, as I wrote in siman 656 regarding an etrog, or a fifth as I wrote there, nevertheless, since these involve the publicizing of the miracle, and they obligated a poor person to sell his garment—there is no longer a measure for the matter. And there is one who says that here too one should not squander more than a fifth (Pri Megadim). But it does not appear so (and so wrote the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger). Only in truth this is not common, and the expenditure for this is small. However, as a matter of law, it appears as I have written.

How many lamps does one kindle? Thus we learned in Shabbat (21b): The commandment of Chanukah is a lamp for a man and his household, and those who are mehadrin—a lamp for each and every one of the members of the household. And those who are mehadrin min hamehadrin: on the first day—he kindles one, from here on—he continues to add. And our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, explained that the mehadrin min hamehadrin do not hold like the mehadrin to kindle one lamp for each person; for if so, since their reasoning is that one who sees the lamps should know from this how many days there are in Chanukah, if he kindles lamps according to the number of people in the house, it would still not be known to him how many days it is now. For example, when he sees four lamps—it could be that there is one man here and it is the fourth day of Chanukah, and perhaps there are two people here and it is the second day, or four people and it is the first day. Therefore, they would only kindle one lamp for all the members of the household, and on the second, two lamps, etc.

But the Rambam, of blessed memory, at the beginning of the fourth chapter wrote: How many lamps…? Every house lights one lamp… and one who is mehader lights lamps according to the number of the people of the house… and one who is more mehader… lights a lamp for each one on the first night, and continues to add… How so? If the people of the house were ten people – he lights ten lamps on the first night, and twenty lamps on the second night… and it is a widespread custom in all our cities in Sepharad, that all the people of the house light one lamp on the first night, and continue to add a lamp every night, until it is found on the eighth night – he lights eight lamps, whether the people of the house were many, or whether it was one person. Thus far his words. And the custom of the people of Sepharad is like the Tosafot.

And behold, in the Gemara two reasons were stated for this. The first: corresponding to the days that have passed. That is to say: so that they will know how many days of Chanukah have passed, and the day that one lights is also counted among those that have passed. And according to this reason, the words of the Tosafot certainly appear more correct, for if we light according to the number of members of the household—we would still not know, as I have written. But there is another reason: because we ascend in matters of holiness. And as it appears, this reason is according to the conclusion (from the elders in Sidon, see there). And according to this reason, we are not concerned with knowing the days, and according to this it is simple that the words of the Rambam appear more correct, that we can fulfill the obligation even as mehadrin (the Gra). And according to this, the primary ruling is like the Rambam. And it is a matter of wonder that when the Rambam brought the custom of Spain to the contrary: why did he not write that it is not according to the halacha, and why did he not protest against them, since it is not according to the sugya of the Shas? (See Lechem Mishneh, who also raised a difficulty similar to this.)

It appears more likely that the reasons of the Gemara do not disagree with one another, and many reasons can exist for a single mitzvah. In the Gemara, it did not say that they disagree regarding the reason for the matter, but rather regarding the matter of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. For Beit Shammai hold: the first day—eight, the second day—seven, as it continuously diminishes. And Beit Hillel hold: the first day—one, the second day—two, as it continuously increases. And regarding this, it says there that they disagree as to what Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed. For one said that Beit Shammai hold that the recognition must be for the days entering, and Beit Hillel for those that have passed. And one said that Beit Shammai hold like the bulls of the festival which diminish, and Beit Hillel hold: we ascend in holiness and do not descend. But Beit Hillel themselves could hold both reasons together. (And so it is in Masechet Soferim, the first chapter, halacha 5, see there.)

However, even without this, the words of the Tosafot are not understood in what they said—that if we light according to the number of the members of the household, there will be no recognition. For we could light according to the number of the members of the household and there would be recognition, namely: that each one of the members of the household should light in a specific place, as we do. And then the observer will have recognition of how many days of Chanukah have passed. However, even this works out well, for according to the essential law we light at the entrance adjacent to the public domain, and on the left side, and within the handbreadth adjacent to the entrance, as will be explained. If so, they are necessarily all in one place, and there is no recognition. And behold, not in all places do we light at the entrance adjacent to the public domain, as will be explained. And as it is with us, where we have not known of this and we light inside the house. And in such a case, even the Tosafot admit that one should act according to the Rambam, and each one should light in a place by himself, and there will also be recognition. See in section 15.

And according to this, everything settles well. For the Tosafot wrote this according to the law of the Gemara, when they would kindle at the entrance of the public domain, and so the people of Sefarad would do. And the Rambam: either he is dealing with one who kindles in his house, or even according to the law of the Gemara one may choose as he wishes, since in both there is an advantage and a disadvantage. Therefore, the Rambam did not rebuke them, the people of Sefarad. And behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 2 ruled like the Tosafot, as this is the custom of Sefarad, and the Maggid Mishneh also wrote that such was their custom. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote like the Rambam, and this is his wording: And some say that each one of the members of the household should kindle, and such is the simple custom. And they should be careful for each and every one to place his lamps in a distinct place, so that there will be a recognition of how many lamps they are kindling. Thus far his words, and this is like the Rambam. And he was explicitly precise that each one should place them in a distinct place, for we kindle in the house, and in such a case even the Tosafot agree. And it turns out that they do not disagree in the law, but rather it changed according to the situation of the place of kindling. (And with this, the wonderment of the Taz, subsection 1, is removed, that we do not find that the Ashkenazim follow the Rambam and the Sefardim follow the Tosafot. And all this is explained in Knesset Yechezkel, siman 17. And also the Gra, subsection 5, alluded to it, and such is the primary view. And examine and you will find it easy.)

And behold now in our time – the custom has returned to be like the words of the Tosafot. For the Rambam wrote to light according to the custom of the members of the household, whether men or women, etc. Thus far his words. And certainly it is so, for women are obligated in the Chanukah candle like men. Yet in our days we have not heard this, and even when there are several adult sons – they fulfill their obligation with the lighting of their father, and even if there are other men. And occasionally there is one who recites the blessing and lights for himself. And it seems to me that in this too there is a reason, for we are accustomed to light at the entrance of the large room, where most of those entering and exiting pass through. If so, it has returned to be like the time of the Shas, where all must be in one place, and there would be no distinctiveness. However, it seems more likely: since they fulfill their obligation either way – they are not concerned about this, and they may do as much as they wish. And it is enough for us to be mehadrin min hamehadrin, for even if we are not like the mehadrin – nevertheless, one has fulfilled the obligation of the mitzvah (so it seems in my humble opinion).

One who does not have much oil, such that he cannot put the required measure in every lamp—he should put a large amount in one, so that it will be according to the measure with room to spare, and in the remainder he should put a very small amount. For if he puts an equal amount in all of them, there will not be the required measure even in one, and his blessing would be in vain, and he would not fulfill the mitzvah. And if he has the required measure for all the lamps, but his fellow has none at all—it is better that he give a little to his fellow, and he himself should light only one lamp (Magen Avraham, subsection 1). For it is better that he not be the one who performs the mehudar and his fellow also fulfills the mitzvah, than that he be the one who performs the mehudar and his fellow does not fulfill the mitzvah at all. And in this case, the principle of "sin so that your fellow may merit" does not apply, for he also fulfills his obligation. However, in this one must be careful: for example, if it is now the fourth day, and he is compelled to give to his fellow as I have written, and he only has enough for four lamps. When he gives enough for one lamp to his fellow—he should not light three himself, but rather one, for three on the fourth day has no logic at all. And so too in a similar case, one who does not have oil for all the lamps of the day—he should light only one, and it will be according to the essential law.

A lamp that has two mouths—it counts for him for two people, for those who make a lamp for each individual. However, for those who make an addition every night—two people should not light in one lamp, for then there will be no recognition of how many lamps they are lighting today (ibid. subsection 2). However, when the lamp is large and has many mouths, and this one lights at this end and that one at the other end, in a manner where there is a significant gap between one and the other—behold, there is recognition that they belong to two people, and they may light in such a manner (it appears to me).

If one filled a bowl with oil and surrounded it with wicks, if he inverted a vessel over it so that the flame was diminished, and the distinction from wick to wick is recognizable – each wick counts as one lamp. But if he did not invert a vessel over it, and the lights mingle with one another – it is like a bonfire, and it does not count even as one lamp. And even when he inverts it, it is only if he inverts it before he kindles. For if he kindles and afterwards inverts – there is no benefit, since the kindling was done in a state of disqualification, and the primary factor is the moment of kindling (Be'er Heitev, subsection 5, in the name of R. A. Halevi). Therefore, one must be careful to set the lamps in a row and not in a circle, for that is like a bonfire. And he should also set them evenly, and not with one recessed and one protruding, for in that case there is no recognition that is visible, that each one is a matter unto itself.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 4: And it is permitted to kindle with the candelabra called a lampa, since each candle is significantly separated from its fellow. Thus far his words, meaning: even though we said that one should not kindle in a circle, as I have written, nevertheless in a circular lampa—it is permitted, because they are far from one another and are clearly recognizable. Nevertheless, those who are meticulous wrote: we do not kindle with circular candelabra, for this is not a hiddur for the Chanukah candle (Taz and Magen Avraham at the end of subsection 4 in the name of the Rashal). Meaning: that Chanukah candles are not beautified when they are in a circle. But our candelabra, which are properly in a line—it is a hiddur. And so we practice, provided that each candle is the distance of a finger from its fellow (Eliyahu Rabbah). And there is one who requires two fingers (Pri Megadim). And there is no general rule in this, for it depends on the manner of their construction. And the main point is that each candle must be recognizable on its own (see in the Tur).

And when one makes candles of wax – he should not stick two candles together as one, and all the more so more than that. For this is like a torch, which is a mitzvah only for havdalah, and not for Chanukah candles, nor for Shabbat and Yom Tov candles, as they do not appear as candles but rather as bonfires. And so too, one must be careful to distance candle from candle by at least a finger-breadth, for if not so, the flames will join one with another, and it will be like a bonfire. And it is in this manner regarding all things, for this is an essential requirement, that each candle must appear separated from its fellow. (And the Maharshal wrote that one who kindles in round candelabras – should hang them within the tefach adjacent to the entrance, and should begin from the middle candle adjacent to the entrance, and turn toward the right. And it has already been explained that this is not an enhancement, and he should kindle in a straight line.)

And know that I have seen one of the great authorities who raised a clamor against our teacher, the Rema, and against the custom, and wrote that these are blessings in vain. And this refers to what our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And some say that each one of the members of the household should kindle, and such is the custom. Thus far his words, and this is according to the system of the Rambam, as I have written. And it is an error, for the Rambam did not say that each one of the members of the household should kindle, but rather the householder should kindle according to the number of people that are in his house. And also the Gemara which said: And those who are mehadrin, a lamp for each and every one—it did not say "the lamp of each and every one" but rather "a lamp for each and every one." That is to say: that the householder should kindle a lamp for each one of the members of his household. And this is what the Rambam explained: that if he has ten people—he kindles ten lamps on the first night, and on the second—twenty, and so on until the end. And this is all upon the householder. But for two people to kindle in one house—it is a blessing in vain, and it is forbidden to do so (Galya Massekhta siman 6). And according to this, that which we labored over in section 7 regarding the words of the Tosafot settles well, as they wrote that if we kindle according to the number of the people of the house—there would be no recognition. But behold, could not each one kindle in a place for himself? However, if we say that the obligation is only upon the householder—it settles well, for he kindles in one place.

Indeed, the words of our teacher, the Rema, are correct. For that which he infers from their saying "a lamp for each person" that it refers to the head of the household—certainly it is so. But because of this, if each person lights a lamp for himself, is it any less? And a proof for this is from the end of the seventh chapter of Eruvin (80b) regarding eruvei chatzerot and shitufei mevo'ot, where we learned in a Mishnah: What is its measure...? Like a dried fig for each and every one. And its explanation is: that one person acquires on behalf of everyone like a dried fig for each one. And now, if each person gives a dried fig—is it not effective? Is this not the essence of eruv, that each person gives his portion? And so too at the beginning of the eighth chapter regarding eruvei techumin, where we learned in a Mishnah: What is its measure? Like two meals for each and every one. And shall we now also say that if each person gives—it is not effective? On the contrary: this is the essence of the eruv, and the rabbis were lenient that one person may also give on behalf of everyone. And here too regarding the Chanukah lamp: the essence is that each person should light a lamp for himself, and the rabbis were lenient that the head of the household may light on behalf of everyone. And perforce one must say so, as will be explained with the help of Heaven. (And it appears to me that this is the intention of Rashi on 21b in the comment beginning "And those who are meticulous," see there. For if not so, what did he add to the wording of the Shas? See there. And examine it and you will find it simple.)

For behold, one of the great ones has already raised a difficulty: How is the mitzvah of the Chanukah candle different from all other mitzvot? For regarding all other mitzvot, it is incumbent upon every individual of Israel to perform the mitzvah, but regarding the Chanukah candle—it is only upon the master of the house alone (Pnei Yehoshua ibid., and he remained with the matter requiring further study). However, in truth, it works out well. For behold, we find that regarding the etrog—every individual is obligated to take the four species in his hand, and regarding the shofar—one blows and everyone hears. This is because regarding the etrog the mitzvah is the taking, and regarding the shofar the mitzvah is the hearing. But hearing is impossible without blowing, and therefore one blows and everyone hears. And so it is regarding the reading of the Megillah: one reads and everyone hears. And here regarding Chanukah, the mitzvah is the seeing: to see the candles while they are burning, and this is the pirsumei nisa. Therefore, they instituted a blessing for the one who sees, as is found in the Gemara there. But seeing is impossible without lighting, therefore they instituted that the master of the house lights, and all the members of his household see. Nevertheless, it is not entirely similar to shofar and Megillah. For regarding shofar—the mitzvah is nothing but the hearing, as we bless "to hear the sound of the shofar." And regarding Megillah—one who hears is like one who responds. But regarding the Chanukah candle—the essence of the mitzvah is the lighting, as we bless "to light the Chanukah candle." It is only that the seeing is also a mitzvah, and therefore the one who sees blesses "who performed miracles," as I wrote in siman 676.

Therefore, our sages, of blessed memory, did not impose an obligation upon every individual to kindle, since there is also a mitzvah in the seeing. This is what they said: The mitzvah of Chanukah is a lamp for a man and his household. That is to say: he through kindling, and the members of his household through seeing. And the mehadrin, so that everyone should have a portion in the kindling as well, a lamp for each and every one. That is to say: if it is possible for each one to kindle for himself, as with all mitzvot where each one should perform the mitzvah in its completeness—it is obvious that there is nothing greater than this. However, even if the master of the house kindles a lamp for each and every one of the members of his household—behold, they all have a portion in the kindling as well, and this too is within the mehadrin. And only regarding the mehadrin min hamehadrin, where they also make a recognition of the days, because each day was a miracle unto itself, in that the cruse of oil sufficed for all the days—our teachers disagree whether through this the mehadrin is nullified, and this is the opinion of the Tosafot. Or: that even in this the enactment of the mehadrin is fulfilled, according to the opinion of the Rambam. And the words of our teacher, the Rema, are firm and established, and Moshe is true and his Torah is true.

Since the essence of the mitzvah is because of pirsumei nisa, therefore our sages, of blessed memory, commanded there not to light them inside his house. And thus the sages said: The Chanukah candle – the mitzvah is to place it at the entrance of his house from the outside. If he lived in an upper story – he places it in the window adjacent to the public domain. And in a time of danger, he places it on his table, and it is sufficient for him. And Rashi explained: At the entrance of his house from the outside – because of pirsumei nisa. And not in the public domain but in his courtyard, for their houses opened into the courtyard. Thus far his words. That is to say: for if it entered your mind to say in the public domain – it should have said: at the entrance of his courtyard from the outside. And since it said: at the entrance of his house from the outside, and the house opens into the courtyard – learn from this that it means in the courtyard. And the Tosafot raised a difficulty against this from that which it said later: A courtyard that has two entrances – requires two candles. However, the Smag and the Hagahot Maimoniyot (chapter four, letter 30) already wrote in the name of the Ri: that it does not mean specifically the courtyard, for we have not found that we require candles in a courtyard, but rather it means in the house that is in the courtyard. Thus far their words. And so it is explained from the words of the Rambam there, who wrote: At the entrance of his house from the outside, within the tefach adjacent to the entrance, on the left of the one entering the house. Thus far his words. (And as for the difficulty the Tosafot raised in the heading starting with "mitzvah," from that which they said: a candle that has two mouths counts for two people – implying for two houses. And if it is at the entrance of the courtyard – it would be on the right for this one, and on the left for this one. Thus far their words. And I wonder: can you not find such a case with two houses, one inside the other, and they exit through one entrance to the courtyard? And it requires further study.)

But the Tosafot wrote: "At the entrance of his house from the outside" – and this deals with a case where there is no courtyard, but rather the house stands adjacent to the public domain. But if there is a courtyard before the house – it is a mitzvah to place it at the entrance of the courtyard, etc. Thus far their words. And so wrote the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 5, and this is their wording: The Chanukah candle – it is a mitzvah to place it at the entrance adjacent to the public domain from the outside. If the house opens to the public domain – he places it at its entrance. And if there is a courtyard before the house – he places it at the entrance of the courtyard. And if he lived in an upper story, which does not have an entrance opening to the public domain – he places it in a window adjacent to the public domain. And in a time of danger, when they do not allow the fulfillment of the mitzvot – he places it on his table, and it is sufficient for him. Thus far their words. And I am wondered: since Rashi, and the Ran, and the Rambam, and Ri, and the Smag, and the Hagahot Maimoniyot – who are many, and they explained not like the Tosafot, how did they not bring their opinion at all? And it requires further study. (However, in Masechet Soferim chapter twenty, halacha 5, it is written: The Chanukah candle – it is a mitzvah to place it at the entrance adjacent to the public domain. See there.)

We hold that it is forbidden to make use of the light of the Hanukkah candles, and this will be explained in siman 673. Therefore, when one kindles in his home upon his table – he requires another candle, in order to make use of its light. And we do not say: since he is in any case compelled to kindle upon his table – he is perforce making use of its light, for even if he kindles another candle – its light also assists his usage. For nevertheless, he is obligated to kindle another candle, so that the usage will also be by the light of a mundane candle, and also for the sake of a distinction so that they will know that it is forbidden to make use of its light. And if there is a bonfire there – he does not require another candle, as he can make use of the light of the bonfire. However, if he is a person of stature, whose way is not to make use of a bonfire – he must kindle another candle. And from this emerged the custom that also the shamash with which they kindle the Hanukkah candle – shall also burn not far from the Hanukkah candles, so that if he makes use – he will make use in the presence of the shamash, and not in the presence of the candles.

It is a mitzvah to place it below ten tefachim close to the ground, for in this there is a recognition that it is for a mitzvah. For a mundane lamp used for service—one does not place it so low (the Rosh). Nevertheless, one should not place it lower than three close to the ground, for in such a case there is no recognition of the mitzvah at all. Nevertheless, if he placed it above ten—he has fulfilled the obligation, provided that it is below twenty amot. For if he placed it above twenty amot—it is invalid, for above twenty the eye does not rule. And even if he lowered it down—it is invalid, for we require lighting in a valid location. And he must extinguish it, place it below twenty, and light it. And some say that nowadays when we light inside the house—it is valid even above twenty, for since the house has a roof and walls—the eye rules even above twenty, just as in a sukkah where the walls reach the sechach. And the Tur disagrees regarding this, for specifically in a sukkah the eye rules over the entire sechach. But here regarding the lamps, which are below the roof—it makes no difference. And so it appears from the opinion of most of the poskim, who did not make such a distinction. And when one lights in a window, it appears that there is no distinction, and he may place it in any location he desires, whether below three from the floor of the window, or above ten tefachim, for in a window there is recognition in every location (and so it is implied in the Magen Avraham, subsection 6). And when one lights in a doorway, and there is a threshold there—it appears to me that we calculate from the threshold, and not from the ground. And he should place it ab initio within ten tefachim close to the threshold, and higher than three tefachim from the threshold. And it is obvious that if the candlestick is tall—that we calculate from the location of the lamps, and not from the top of the candlestick. And the Rambam did not mention at all this matter of being within ten tefachim, because in the Gemara there is a rejection of this. But most of the poskim ruled like the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, because that is a mere rejection, but for the halacha we maintain so. And so is the primary ruling, and so we practice.

It is a mitzvah to place the Hanukkah lamp within the handbreadth adjacent to the entrance. For if not so, since we kindle outside—it would not be recognizable that this is a Hanukkah lamp, as there would be no indication at all that the homeowner placed it there (Rashi 22a, starting with the words "It is a mitzvah"). And he places it on the left side, so that he will be surrounded by mitzvot: the mezuzah on the right, and the Hanukkah lamp on the left. Therefore, if there is no entrance there fit for a mezuzah—he places it on the right, for in every place the right is preferable. And if he placed it within the space of the entrance on the sideposts, and it is very wide—he should place it from the half of the entrance toward the house on the left side, and not from the half toward the exit. (The Beit Yosef, and the Bach, and the Taz subsection 6—dealt at length with this. But the simple explanation—is as I have written. Examine closely and you will find it easy.)

And behold, now we do not light outside. And even though there is no danger among us, nevertheless it is nearly impossible, because in all our countries the days of Chanukah are days of stormy weather, rain and snow and strong winds. And it is impossible to leave them outside, unless one encloses them in glass. And the sages did not trouble him to such an extent. Furthermore: in this way there would not be such a recognizable sign for the mitzvah. And also, they will not allow this to be done in all places. Therefore, we all light inside the house. Consequently, since the recognition is only for the members of the household, and there is no recognition for the people of the public domain at all—one need not be so concerned if they do not light within the handbreadth adjacent to the entrance. Nevertheless, the custom is to light within the handbreadth adjacent to the entrance as in their days, and one should not change this. Or, they light inside the entrance on the left doorpost. However, if the members of the household are many, and each one wants to fulfill the mitzvah for himself—it is impossible to light within the handbreadth adjacent to the entrance, for the candles will become intermingled, and there will be no recognition at all of how many days it is in Chanukah. Therefore, it is better that each one should recite the blessing in a specific place at the windows and the like. Nevertheless, they should not light in the place where they light all year round, such as on the table and the like, for then there will be no recognition at all. And even though the recognition is only for the members of the household—nevertheless, some recognition is also required. And such is the custom, to light the Chanukah candle not in the place where they set candles all year round. And best of all is that if he has a window open to the public domain—he should set them near the window, and the people of the public domain will also see through the window, and there is pirsumei nisa (Magen Avraham, subsection 8). And so I practice.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that in the beit knesset, the menorah is placed on the south side, in memory of the Menorah that was in the south. However, the manner of the arrangement depends on the dispute in Menachot (98b) whether they were placed east to west, or north to south. And seemingly, since Rabbi holds there that they were placed east to west—the halacha follows Rabbi over his colleague. But the Rambam and the Semag wrote in the laws of the Beit HaBechirah that they were placed north to south. However, the custom among us is to arrange it between east and west, and so wrote our teacher, the Rema. Nevertheless, those who practice between north and south—should hold fast to their custom (Magen Avraham, subsection 9), for they have the opinion of the Rambam and the Semag to rely upon.

And it is simple that one does not fulfill the obligation with the candles of the beit knesset, and each person must return and light in his home, even one who recited the blessing in the beit knesset. For the obligation is upon every head of the household, and that which we light in the beit knesset is merely for the sake of pirsumei nisa. And if it is difficult: how do we recite a blessing over the candles of the beit knesset? One can say: that for the sake of pirsumei nisa we recite a blessing, just as we recite a blessing over Hallel on Rosh Chodesh. However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, also wrote in section 7 that we recite a blessing over the candles of the beit knesset, and he holds that we do not recite a blessing over Hallel on Rosh Chodesh (see Sha'arei Teshuva, small subsection 10, where the Chacham Tzvi raised this difficulty). But even this is settled. First: that for the most part there are guests or single men who do not have a home, and they fulfill the obligation with the lighting of the beit knesset. And even if it is not so, since the entire essence of the lighting is for the sake of pirsumei nisa, and in the home we cannot fulfill the pirsumei nisa as in the time of the Gemara to light outside, therefore in the beit knesset is the primary pirsumei nisa, and it is appropriate to recite a blessing there. Nevertheless, one does not fulfill the obligation with this, as I have written. And in the beit knesset it is customary to light between Mincha and Maariv, for then there is more publicity. And on Erev Shabbat some are customary to light before Mincha in the beit knesset. And such is our custom, for even the lighting of the Shabbat candles we light before Mincha. And if the one lighting is the shaliach tzibbur, and he hurries himself to pray – he can recite the blessing and light one candle, and the shamash or another shall light the rest. And also in one's home there is no prohibition that the head of the household should begin the lighting, and another should finish. Nevertheless, it is good that the head of the household himself should finish them all, to light them himself.

We say in the Gemara (23a): A courtyard that has two entrances from two sides—it requires two lamps. Rashi explained: that the house has two entrances, see there. He follows his own reasoning, that the lighting is at the entrance of the house near the courtyard. But according to the Tosafot it is according to its plain meaning, and the reason is: because of suspicion, for perhaps the people of his city who walk on this side, and will not see lamps, will say: just as he did not light in this one, he also did not light in that one. But when they are on one side—they will surely see that there are lamps at the second entrance. And it is obvious that when one lights in two places—he should only recite one blessing upon the first lighting, and upon the second lighting he should not recite a blessing since it is only because of suspicion. And all of this was in their time, when they would recite the blessing and light at the entrance of the courtyard or the entrance of the house. But nowadays, when everyone lights inside the house, and the recognition is only for the members of the household and not for the people in the public domain, even if the courtyard or the house has many entrances on many sides—one only lights in one place. For the members of his household know that it is all one homeowner. And such is the simple custom.

And know: that our teacher, the Rema, in section 8, regarding the law that was explained that when the two entrances are on one side—one does not need to light at both entrances, wrote: that this is when they are in one house. Thus far his words. And it implies that if they are in two houses—one must light in both of them, even from one side. And so he wrote explicitly in his book Darchei Moshe at the end of this siman in the name of the Kol Bo, see there. And it is not understood at all, for behold, in the Gemara there it is explained explicitly that the suspicion is because of the residents of the city, who know that they belong to one person. Rather, it is on two sides that they will say that also on the other side he did not light, as I have written, and not on one side. And if so, what difference is it to me if it is one house, and what difference is it to me if it is two houses, since they know that they belong to one person? And if we say that in two houses they would not know that they belong to one person, from where do we have this to say so? And it requires further study. (And it is possible to say when we examine the suspicion, that they will say since at this entrance he did not light etc., why would they suspect him of this? And it is not similar to pe'ah, where it is their way only to leave it at the end of the harvesting, see there. Rather, certainly even the residents of the city are not so expert that there is only one homeowner here, but they will attribute it more that there is only one homeowner here when they are on one side and in one house, and in one of the houses it was lit. But when one of these is lacking—they will reason that they are two homeowners. And be precise and you will find it simple.)