Siman 673

It is a mitzvah of the highest quality to kindle Chanukah lights with olive oil, because it is drawn after the wick well, and its light is very clear (Shabbat 23a). Furthermore, the miracle was performed with olive oil. If olive oil is not available, it is a mitzvah with other oils whose light is pure and clean. It is the custom in these lands to kindle with wax candles, for their light is clear like oil (Rema). And now there are candles of hardened fat, called stearin licht, whose light is much clearer than wax, and many are accustomed to kindle with these. Now, one who is in his home certainly ought to fulfill the beautified mitzvah with olive oil. However, on a journey, where it is impossible to carry a candelabrum and oil with him, he should kindle either with wax or with hardened fat.

It is stated in the Gemara (ibid. 21b): Wicks and oils that the sages said one may not light with them on Shabbat—one may light with them on Chanukah. That is to say: on Shabbat there are wicks with which one may not light, because the flame flickers in them, and oils—those that are not drawn after the wick. And on Chanukah there is no concern regarding this. For on Shabbat the reason for the prohibition is that since it does not burn well, and usage is difficult before such a light—we fear lest he tilt it and fix it, so that it will burn well. But regarding the Chanukah candle, for which it is forbidden to use its light—why would he tilt it? And what does it matter to him if it burns well or does not burn well? And even on the Shabbat of Chanukah—it is permitted to light Chanukah candles with them. And even though on Shabbat there is another concern, that we should fear that since it does not burn well it will go out, and he will come to light it—yet even regarding this there is no concern, for we hold that if the Chanukah candle went out within the time of its required duration—one is not bound by it and does not need to light it again. Therefore, even on Shabbat there is no concern regarding this according to the law. However, on Shabbat one must be careful not to put in oil except according to the required duration. For if he puts in more than the required duration—it is forbidden, because after the time of its required duration it has been explained that it is permitted to use its light. And then there is a concern lest he tilt it. And it is obvious that the shamash with which one lights the Chanukah candles, and which stands near the candles—it is forbidden for it to be from these, for it is permitted to use its light, and we fear lest he tilt it. (And this is the intention of the Magen Avraham, small subsection 1. And it refers to Shabbat, but the wording is slightly garbled, see there.)

It appears to me that even though the Gemara stated without qualification that oils and wicks with which one may not light on Shabbat—one may light with them for Chanukah, nevertheless, this is not a universal rule. For perforce there are things with which one may not light on Shabbat and one may also not light with them for Chanukah, even on a weekday. Specifically: one may not light on Shabbat with something that has a foul odor, for we fear perhaps he will leave it and go out, as I have written above in siman 264. And it is obvious that for Chanukah as well one may not light for this reason, as the essence of pirsumei nisa is the viewing of the candles. Furthermore, it is stated there that one may not light with something that has a fragrant scent, for we fear perhaps he will make use of it, as is explained there. And it is obvious that this same concern exists also regarding the Chanukah candle, for it is forbidden to make use of it. And even if we say that the concern of making use of it is only on Shabbat, where he would come through this to a liability of stoning, whereas in Chanukah it is a mere prohibition—nevertheless, on Shabbat it is certainly forbidden, and in the Gemara they said "whether on a weekday or on Shabbat." Rather, it is certain that it refers only to the primary disqualifications of wicks and oils in the chapter "Bameh Madlikin," which are due to the reason that the light is not good, which is not the case regarding other matters.

It further appears to me: that it is permitted to kindle the Hanukkah lamp in a glass vessel, for it is properly called seeing. Just as I wrote above in siman 75, that regarding ervah in a glass vessel – it is forbidden to recite Keriat Shema facing it, for there is in this the matter of "and He shall see no unseemly thing in you," see there. Behold, seeing through a glass vessel is called seeing, and consequently, it is so regarding the Hanukkah lamp as well.

To light a Hanukkah candle with items that are forbidden for benefit, such as oil of orlah, or butter that was cooked with meat fat, and the like—it is permitted. For since it is forbidden to use them, and it is only for a mitzvah—we hold that mitzvot were not given for benefit. And so ruled one of the great authorities (Be'er Heiteiv subsection 1 in the name of She'eilot U-teshuvot). And there is one who disagrees with this, for the reason that since they require burning or burial—their required measure is considered crushed. And a Hanukkah candle requires a measure (Sha'arei Teshuvah subsection 1). But it is not so, for the Tosafot already wrote in Eruvin (80b, starting with the words "But") that "crushed measure" only applies to something that requires a single mass. But something that is valid through joining, such as a lechi—"crushed measure" does not apply to it. And all the more so regarding oil, in which there is no mass connection at all. And I wonder at the one who says so.

It has already been explained that the primary fulfillment of the mitzvah is with olive oil. Therefore, one who arrived at his home and did not find olive oil, and took wax candles for the Chanukah light, and attached them to the wall and began to recite the blessing, and in the midst of this they brought him olive oil, even if he had not yet uttered the Name but only "Blessed are You" – he should complete the blessing over them. He should not cast them aside to take olive oil, for this is a disgrace to the wax candles, which were also sanctified with the beginning of the blessing. Therefore, one should not shame them for the sake of beautifying the mitzvah. However, before he began the blessing, if they brought him olive oil – he should set aside the wax candles and kindle with olive oil, for they were not sanctified through preparation (ibid. in the name of Chacham Tzvi). And there is one who says that even when he attached them to the wall and had not begun the blessing – he should not set them aside for the sake of olive oil (ibid. in the name of Shevut Yaakov), but it is not the primary view. And it is obvious that one should not kindle half from wax candles and half from olive oil on one night, for this appears like two different things (ibid.). And I saw one who wrote that a wax candle is similar to a torch, and one does not recite the blessing for the Chanukah light over it (see Taz in the name of Maharal of Prague). And I do not know what torch-like quality there is in this, unless two are braided together, as I wrote in siman 671.

It has already been explained that it is forbidden to make use of the light of the Hanukkah candle, whether from the primary single candle which is the core of the obligation, or from the additional candles. The reason is due to the degradation of a mitzvah, as it appears that it is not significant when one makes use of its light. Therefore, even a light use is forbidden. For example, to check coins by its light, or to count coins before it, is forbidden. And some say that specifically a use that must be performed close to the candle, such as checking and counting coins, is forbidden. However, a light use that is performed from a distance is permitted (Beit Yosef, Darchei Moshe). And some forbid even in such a case, for ultimately it is a degradation of a mitzvah (Bach and Taz subsection 3, and Magen Avraham in the name of the Rashal). And such is the custom to be stringent, and even to eat from a distance is forbidden. And even though one benefits while sitting in his house from them, in that there is light in the house and he will not stumble in his walking—this is a benefit that comes of its own accord, and it is merely an indirect cause. This is not the case regarding making use of their light for any type of use whatsoever. And when there is a shamash, it is permitted, as will be explained.

Some say that a use for a mitzvah is permitted to be performed before the Hanukkah lights, such as studying before them. For since the reason is due to the degradation of a mitzvah—this is not a degradation but rather an honor (the Ittur in the Tur). And one should not ask: If so, how did they permit lighting with oils that are not drawn after the wick on the Shabbat of Hanukkah for the reason that it is forbidden to use its light, for is there not a concern that he will study and tilt it? For this is not a question, since in any case it is forbidden to study by the light of a candle except for two people, and they will remind one another, as I have written in siman 275. And there is one who says that the one who permits it only permits it in a temporary manner, and not to study in a permanent manner (Taz, subsection 4). And these are puzzling matters to one who examines the Tur (and the difficulty raised by the Taz there requires further study; look closely and you will find it easy). Nevertheless, some say that there is no difference between a mundane use or a holy use, for whenever one uses light before it, it has no recognition that it is for the sake of Hanukkah. And this is the opinion of most of the poskim, and such is the simple custom.

The Tur wrote that because it is forbidden to make use of its light—one adds one candle, so that if one makes use of its light—he will make use of that candle, etc. And the last one shall not be for the sake of the Chanukah candle, etc. And the name "shammash" is not upon it, for the shammash is that which kindles the candles with it. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, added in section 1 to say that he should place it a bit far from the rest of the mitzvah candles. Thus far his words. For if not so—behold, he ruins the hiddur of the mehadrin min hamehadrin, as they will think that such is the number of days that have passed of Chanukah. But from the words of the Tur it does not imply so, for he wrote that they asked of his brother, our teacher Yechiel: when kindling one more without specification, and he did not specify which of them, if he can afterwards choose whichever of them he wants for the shammash, the first or the middle or the last? And he replied that one should not interrupt among the Chanukah candles, therefore it shall be the last. Thus far his words. And if it enters your mind that he must place it far—what is this question? Behold, he has already clarified the one that he placed far. Rather, certainly it stands equal with the other candles. And if it is difficult: for if so, behold he ruins the hiddur? For it can be said: that since the custom was so—behold, everyone knows that there is one among them more than the count of the days, and automatically the count of the days is known as well. (And I wonder at the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch who did not remark on this, see there. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

But our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this, and this is his wording: And in these provinces – it is not the custom to add, but rather one places near them the shamash with which he kindles the lights, and this is much better. And one should make it longer than the rest of the lights, so that if he comes to make use [of the light] – he shall make use of that light. Thus far his words. And in truth, I do not understand the opinion of the Tur and the custom in his days; why did they need an additional light? Behold, there is the shamash. And one cannot say that they did not have a shamash, for behold the Tur concludes: and it does not have the status of "shamash" upon it, for the shamash is that which kindles the lights with it, thus far his words. If so, they had a shamash, and what more is needed? And especially since the shamash is much better, as our teacher, the Rema, wrote. And his reason is: that this clearly proves that it is not of the count of the lights (Magen Avraham, subsection 6). And furthermore: that it is longer, or that he places it higher than the rest of the lights (ibid.).

And it appears to me that their reason is because they find it difficult regarding what Rava said in the Gemara, that one needs another candle to use for its light. And it is difficult: what is he teaching us? It is obvious, since it is forbidden to use its light. And it is true that the Ran explained that it refers to a time of danger, when one places it on his table and perforce uses its light, and as I wrote in siman 671, section 21, see there. But the Tur holds that this is its explanation: that one needs yet another additional candle in the order of the candles, and the shamash that stands at a distance does not avail, nor does another candle in the house, because we fear lest he use [light] near the Hanukkah candles. Therefore, one needs another candle for that purpose itself, in the order of the candles, and as I wrote in section 9. But those poskim who wrote that one needs another candle and to place it by itself (as wrote the Beit Yosef and the Bach there, the Riu and the Tzalad, see there) – they do not hold like the Tur, but rather like our custom which our teacher, the Rema, wrote. (And the Beit Yosef and the Bach, as well as the commentators on the Shulchan Aruch, wrote that they are all of one opinion, and also that the intent of the Tur is to place it by itself. And we have already proven that it is not so, and they are two opinions. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

It seems more likely to me that our custom, and as our teacher, the Rema, wrote – is to fulfill both opinions: both the opinion of the Tur, that the additional lamp should specifically be near the lamps for the reason we have written; and the opinions of the poskim that one requires another lamp and must place it by itself, which is that we place the shamash near the lamps, and it is longer than all of them or higher than all of them. For in this, we have satisfied the opinion of the Tur that it must be together with the lamps, and the opinion of the poskim to place it by itself so that it will be recognizable that it is not of the count of the lamps. And here it is recognizable that it is not of the count, for it is distinct from them, as I have written.

And know: there is one who wrote that even though there is another lamp—it is forbidden to make use near them, because the observer will say: it is for his own needs that he lit all of them, for sometimes a person lights several lamps (Magen Avraham, subsection 4 in the name of the Ramban, see there). And these words are astonishing: for it is explicitly implied from the Gemara and the poskim that when there is another lamp—it is permitted to make use of its light. And even though the light will be increased by means of the Hanukkah lamp—we are not concerned for this, for there is no degradation of the mitzvah here, and it is evident that it was lit for the sake of the mitzvah of Hanukkah (Taz, subsection 5). And this matter was not mentioned in the Tur or the poskim. (And the Ramban who wrote this reasoning: this is when he places it on his table, as the Machatzit HaShekel wrote. For this reasoning, that the observer says it is for his own needs that he lit—was only stated in the Gemara when he lights not in its proper place, see there. But in its proper place—it is only because of degradation of the mitzvah. And when there is another lamp—there is no degradation of the mitzvah, as the Taz wrote. And the intention of the Maor is also thus, when he lights it on his table, as the Ran wrote, and in the Maor it is not found at all when there is a shamash near the lamps, as the Magen Avraham wrote. And behold he himself brought this in the name of the Ri"v, and this is the intention of the Ri"v, and the words of the Magen Avraham require further study. And also what he wrote in subsection 5, that if there are many who light, each one requires a shamash, see there—the custom is not so. And the Rashal also disagrees on this, as he wrote there.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote at the end of section 1: If a Chanukah candle that is forbidden for benefit became mixed with other candles, even one in a thousand—it is not nullified, for it is a thing of counting. Rather, he should light from the mixture enough so that certainly a permitted candle is burning with the forbidden candle, and then it is permitted to use their proximity. Thus far his words, meaning: that it had begun to burn and was extinguished immediately, for it is forbidden for benefit. For if it had not yet been lit—it was not forbidden for benefit, for designation is not a significant matter. But when it was lit—it became forbidden for benefit. And even though he himself ruled in Yoreh Deah at the beginning of siman 110 that specifically a thing whose way is to always be counted—is not nullified, but if sometimes they are also sold by weight—it is nullified. And if so, candles as well are certainly sometimes sold by weight. However, Chanukah candles are always sold by count, because of the importance of the mitzvah, and therefore it is not nullified. And therefore there is no permission except when a permitted candle is burning together with the forbidden candle, and that is to say if one Chanukah candle was mixed in—he should light two candles, and if two were mixed in—he should light three, and so always. And just as with the Chanukah candle itself if there is another candle—it is permitted to use its light, as has been explained, so too in the mixtures when there is another permitted candle, it is permitted to use its light. And even though the light is increased also by means of the forbidden item, nevertheless we are not concerned for it, as I have written regarding the Chanukah candle itself.

And there are those who disagree with the essence of this law, for it is not a "thing that is counted" since after the mixture its importance is nullified, and it is no longer a "thing that is counted," and it is nullified one in two. And all the more so since it was extinguished—its importance is nullified even when it is alone (Taz subsection 6 and subsection 7), and it is nullified one in two according to the law of "dry in dry" (and so wrote the Magen Avraham subsection 9 in the name of the Rashal). And since the primary prohibition of a "thing that is counted" is only rabbinic, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah there—one may rely on those who are lenient. And there are those who wish to prohibit here for the reason of "fixed." But it is not so, for there is no Torah-level "fixed" here, since the prohibition is not recognizable on its own. And rabbinic "fixed" is only because of a "thing that is counted." And since we have clarified that this is not a "thing that is counted"—consequently the "fixed" status is removed. And these matters are explained in Yoreh Deah there. (See Sha'arei Teshuva subsection 9, who wrote on this. And the main point is as I have written, and examine closely and you will find it simple.)

We hold in the Gemara there that if it went out—he is not bound by it. That is to say: since he lit it, and it contained the required measure of oil, and the essence of the mitzvah is the lighting—he has performed his mitzvah, and he is not bound to light it another time. And even on Erev Shabbat, when one lights while the day is yet long, and it went out before the acceptance of Shabbat while it was still day—nevertheless, he is not bound by it. And the same law applies if after he lit it he came to adjust it and extinguished it inadvertently—he is not bound by it. And some say that on Erev Shabbat he is obligated to light a second time, but without a blessing, for he already recited the blessing properly (Magen Avraham, subsection 12 in the name of the Rashal, and Taz, subsection 9). And certainly on a weekday, one who wishes to be stringent upon himself and return to light it—he should not recite a blessing over it. And it is proper to be stringent upon himself and return to light without a blessing. And even though according to the law he does not need to—it is no less than one who is meticulous in a mitzvah (ibid.). And all this is when he put in the required measure of oil, and also did not place it in a location where the wind prevails. For if he did not put in the required measure of oil, or if he placed it in a location where the wind prevails, such that from the start it was destined to be extinguished—he is obligated by law to return and light it, and with a blessing, for the first blessing was in vain. And some say that regarding wind he should not return and recite a blessing (ibid.), for perhaps that wind was not strong enough to extinguish it. But if it was strong enough to extinguish it—it is obvious that he returns and recites a blessing.

An earthenware lamp that one lit for one night—it becomes old and repulsive, and one may not light it on another night; rather, one takes new ones every night. And if he only has an old one—he should burn it in fire every night, for it becomes like new. A metal lamp—does not require a new one, and one of glass or of glazed earthenware—its law is like metal. However, regarding the wicks—certainly we are not concerned with replacing them until they are consumed. For the wick does not become repulsive, and on the contrary, an old wick is better for lighting than a new one, as we learned in a Mishnah: A wick that was singed (Shabbat 28b: A wick that he folded and did not singe, and Rashi explained in the entry beginning "singe"—so that it will be charred and light well, see there).