Siman 676

One who lights the Hanukkah candle on the first night recites three blessings: "to light the Hanukkah candle," and some say "the candle of Hanukkah," and in the Tur the version is "of Hanukkah" in two words, and so it is in the Rambam chapter three, see there, and just as with the candle of Shabbat where one recites the blessing thus. However, in the Shulchan Aruch he wrote: "Hanukkah candle," and so it is according to the Arizal. And some have written "of-Hanukkah" as one word (Shelah). And they wrote that the candle of Shabbat, which is made for use—the phrasing "of Shabbat" is appropriate. But the Hanukkah candle, which is forbidden for use, and is only for Hanukkah alone—it is not appropriate to say "of Hanukkah," for it is not of Hanukkah but Hanukkah itself. Nevertheless, there is no strict requirement. And we are accustomed to say "Hanukkah candle."

And know that there is a great question regarding this blessing: How do we recite the blessing "to kindle" (le-hadlik) with the letter lamed, when in Pesachim (7b) it is explained that for any mitzvah that a person is not compelled to perform himself, and can perform through a messenger—we do not recite the blessing with a lamed, but rather with "on" (al). If so, we should have recited the blessing "on the kindling of the Chanukah light" (al hadlakat ner Chanukah). And so it is explicitly stated in the Yerushalmi Sukkah (Chapter 3, Halacha 4): How do we recite the blessing on the Chanukah light? Rav said: "Blessed... Who has sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us on the mitzvah of the kindling of the Chanukah light," see there. And why did they say in the Gemara Shabbat (23a) "to kindle the Chanukah light" (le-hadlik ner Chanukah)? And one of the great Rishonim answered: Since everyone must participate with coins, it is as if he performs it himself (Ran, Pesachim ibid.). And in truth, there are some of the great Rishonim who said that the version in the Gemara should read: "on the kindling of the Chanukah light" (Beit Yosef in the name of Shibbolei HaLeket, see there, and in Shiltei HaGibborim in the name of the Riaz, and in the Tanya, see there our teacher Yosef). And there is one of our teachers who answered that since everyone kindles in his home due to the love of the mitzvah—it is as if it is incumbent upon him to perform it (the Rosh ibid.). And with further explanation it appears to me: Since there is no house in which they do not kindle the Chanukah light, and everyone is obligated at any rate to see them because of the publication of the miracle—it is as if it is incumbent upon everyone to perform it. (And in my humble opinion it appears because the expression "kindling" [hadlakah] implies even if it was already lit and standing. And we hold that this is not effective. Therefore, the expression "on the kindling of the Chanukah light" implies only that it should be lit, but "to kindle" implies that it is not sufficient not to kindle, as they said in the Gemara there: It is not sufficient, for he himself did not circumcise. See there.)

The second blessing: "Who performed miracles for our ancestors, in those days at this time." And seemingly this is a redundant expression. And it appears to me: for behold, they wrote that one must say "at this time" and not "and at this time" (Magen Avraham), and it appears that in some versions it was "and at this time." And in my humble opinion, that is the primary version, and this is its explanation: for the primary miracle of the Hasmoneans defeating Antiochus did not occur on this day of the twenty-fifth of Kislev, but rather over many days that they conquered them. And only at this time was there the additional miracle of the cruse of oil that they found. And similarly regarding the blessing of the Megillah: the primary miracle of the turning of Ahasuerus's heart occurred many days prior, for Esther's feast was on the second day of Pesach, and from then he began to pursue Haman. However, on the thirteenth of Adar there was a miracle in its own right, for then the Jews killed their enemies, as it is written: "On the day that the enemies of the Jews hoped to have power over them, it was turned about..." And if so, they are two miracles: the first "in those days," and the second literally "at this time." And one must say "bizman" with a hirik. And the third blessing is "Shehecheyanu," and one must also say "lizman hazeh" with a hirik under the lamed (ibid.).

From the first night onwards, one recites two blessings: "to kindle" and "who performed miracles." However, "who has kept us alive" is only recited the first time, just as on the festivals where we only recite "who has kept us alive" one time. But "who performed miracles" we recite every night, for every day there was a miracle in its own right with the cruse of oil. And one should begin to kindle after finishing all the blessings, for one must bless prior to their performance. And even though this applies to the blessing "to kindle," regarding "who performed miracles" and "who has kept us alive," "prior to their performance" does not apply; and the proof is: for even one who sees them recites them, as will be explained, and the one who sees them certainly blesses after the kindling. See in section 14.

And it is true that it is so in Masekhet Soferim (chapter twenty, halakha 6), and this is its wording: The one who kindles recites the blessing "to kindle the lamp," and says "These lamps we kindle... and for Your salvation," "Blessed are You, Hashem, Who has kept us alive," and says "Who performed miracles," etc. Thus far its words. And in the Hagahot Maimoni, chapter three (letter 2), he wrote that the Maharam did so; see there. However, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that one recites all of them as one, before the kindling. And his reasoning is clear, for how is it possible to interrupt between the blessings? And perforce, since one recites the blessing "to kindle" beforehand, it follows that one must also recite these beforehand, so as not to interrupt. And it appears clear to me that even in Masekhet Soferim the intention is not that one should say the two blessings after "These lamps." And the proof: for the Tur wrote to perform the three blessings together, and afterwards wrote in the name of Masekhet Soferim to say "These lamps," and that the Maharam and the Rosh, of blessed memory, were accustomed to do so; see there. This shows explicitly that they interpreted the intention thus, or that there is an error in Masekhet Soferim and one must say the two blessings beforehand, for many errors have fallen into it, as is known. And so is the primary ruling, and the Maharam also did so, and so it is in the Responsa of the Maharil, and so we are accustomed.

That which we say: one who sees must recite the blessing – Rashi explained that this refers to one who has not yet lit in his home, or to one who is sitting on a ship, see there. And from his wording it implies: that as long as he has not yet recited the blessing in his home, even though he will yet light in his home, nevertheless he is obligated to recite the blessing upon seeing. And it is possible that then afterwards when he lights in his home – he would only recite the blessing "to kindle." But the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch section 3 wrote: one who did not light, and is not destined to light on that night, and also they are not lighting for him within his home – recites the blessing "Who performed miracles," and on the first night he also recites "Who has kept us alive." And if afterwards on the second night or the third night when he comes to light – he does not return and recite "Who has kept us alive." Thus far their words. And they hold that one who is destined to light on that night – does not recite the blessing upon seeing, and so wrote the Rosh, and the Ran, and the Mordechai. And the Ran, of blessed memory, added to say that we do not find that one who has fulfilled the obligation of the mitzvah – should be obligated to return and recite a blessing upon seeing, see there. (And from Tosafot Sukkah 46a, the heading beginning "One who sees," it implies: that even if he already fulfilled the obligation – he must recite the blessing, because Chanukah is different, and is not similar to all the mitzvot, see there. And for the halacha we hold like the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch.)

And know: that regarding this which they wrote, that when they kindle for him in his home—he does not need to bless upon the seeing, there is one who disagrees in this: for granted that he is exempt from kindling himself, nevertheless, the blessing of "she'asa nissim" and "shehecheyanu," which is a commandment of thanksgiving, and the obligation is upon his person—with what is he exempt, since he did not hear the blessings, and did not answer Amen (Bach)? And so too there is proof from Rashi and the Rosh, who wrote that one who travels on a ship—blesses. And is it so that one who travels on a ship does not have them kindle for him in his home? And our teacher Yerucham wrote that there is a dispute in this, and this is his wording: There are some of the great authorities who wrote that if they kindled for him in his home—he does not need to bless when he sees the candle of his fellow. And there are some of them who wrote that even if they kindled for him in his home—that he needs to bless when he sees. Thus far his words (ibid.). And so it appears primary for the law, for behold the Rif and the Rambam wrote without qualification: One who sees needs to bless. And so ruled the Maharshal, that only one who participates with coins and hears the blessings and answers "Amen"—does not need to bless. But when they kindle for him in his home—he needs to bless. (And the Magen Avraham, subsection 1, wrote: that from Tosafot Sukkah 46a it does not imply so, and as the Machatzit HaShekel explained his intent, see there. And I wonder: for on the contrary, from their words it is explained that even one who already blessed—should bless, as I have written, and in this they pilpelled, see there. And in my humble opinion, the primary law is like the Bach and Rashal, and so ruled the Eliyahu Rabbah, subsection 4, and he brought many poskim who wrote so, see there. And what the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 2, that if so, why did Rava Zira not participate with coins? I wonder: for Rava Zira spoke regarding the blessing "to kindle," but "shehecheyanu" and "she'asa nissim"—he blessed on the candles of others through seeing. And the Bach who wrote that his person was not exempt—refers to "shehecheyanu" and "she'asa nissim." And certainly it is so, like one who did not bless on the first night "shehecheyanu"—it is simple that he blesses on the second night. And also on the festival it is so, and here too it is so. And also the Taz in subsection 4, who wrote that the Mordechai is a lone opinion in this, had he seen that many hold so—he would not have said so, as the Eliyahu Rabbah wrote there. And so is primary according to my humble opinion. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

After he has lit the first lamp, he should say: "These lamps we light for the salvations, and for the miracles, and for the wonders, which You performed for our ancestors through Your holy priests. And all eight days of Chanukah these lamps are holy, and we have no permission to make use of them, but only to look at them. In order to give thanks to Your name for Your wonders, and for Your miracles, and for Your salvation." This is the version in the Tur. And while he is saying this, he should finish the lighting. And this is for the purpose of pirsumei nisa. But if he did not say this—it does not invalidate. And the Rambam did not mention this at all, even though it is found in Masekhet Soferim. (And that which he wrote that there are thirty-six words here, corresponding to the number of Chanukah lamps—I am unable to make the calculation match.)

If one forgot and lit one candle fewer than is appropriate—he should light it, but he should not recite a blessing, for the blessing he made at the beginning stands for all the candles (Magen Avraham). Furthermore: for the essence of the mitzvah is fulfilled with one candle, and one should not recite a blessing over the beautification. Therefore, even if he forgot two or more—he should light them and not recite a blessing. And it appears to me that this is specifically when he remembers within the time of lighting. But after the time of lighting—he should not light at all what he forgot, for if he lights—he will also not be among the mehadrin min hamehadrin the second time, since the first ones have already been extinguished. And if so, why should he light them to no benefit? For the recognition is only when they are all burning together.

We have already written that even one who has already fulfilled his obligation—he may kindle on behalf of another and recite the blessing, such as for a woman who does not know how to kindle and recite the blessing, but on the condition that she stands next to him and answers "Amen." However, not in her presence—one should not recite the blessing. And it is also permitted that she kindles, and he recites the blessing (Magen Avraham at the end of subsection 4). And there is one who says: when another recites the blessing—he should bless "concerning the kindling of the Chanukah light" (ibid. in the name of the Bach), since the mitzvah is not currently incumbent upon him. And there is one who says that one should not change the version, and he should bless "to kindle" (ibid. in the name of the Ran). And such is the custom. For behold, even for himself he should have blessed thus, as I wrote in the name of the Yerushalmi. Nevertheless, according to our Shas—we do not bless thus, for the reason that has been explained. If so, there is no difference between when he kindles himself, and when it is by means of a messenger.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: One should begin to kindle on the first day with the rightmost candle. And on the second night, when one adds one candle adjacent to it – he should begin and recite the blessing over the additional one which is further to the left, in order to turn to the right. And so on the third night, when he adds another one adjacent to the first two candles – he should begin with the additional one, and with it begin the blessing, and afterwards turn toward the right side. And so on every night. It follows that he always recites the blessing over the additional one, which indicates the miracle, for with the addition of the days – the miracle was added. Thus far his words. And I saw one who wrote concerning this that there is no reason for this, for this is only for the mehadrin min hamehadrin, and shall he leave the essence of the mitzvah and recite the blessing over the optional? Rather the main point etc. – that he should recite the blessing over the essence of the mitzvah, over the one adjacent to the entrance (the Gra, subsection 6). And I do not understand these words. For this would be relevant if he kindled one candle and did not recite the blessing, and kindled the second and recited the blessing – then the question would be well-asked: how can he recite the blessing over the additional and not over the essence? But according to our teacher, the Beit Yosef – behold, he always recites the blessing over the first one, and it is the essential one, and the rest are additional. And that which he called it "additional" – this is in the order of placing the candles in relation to the previous day, for every day he recites the blessing over a new candle. But behold, it is the first one, and it is the essential mitzvah, and what is the connection of one to the other? And so we do according to the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef (and being adjacent to the entrance is not a requirement).

The Levush disagrees with our teacher, the Beit Yosef, for another reason: for that which he said, that the additional one should be the leftmost, and he should kindle from left to right, and this is the "turning to the right side." But it is the opposite: for the "turning to the right side" is from right to left, as one always begins with that which is more to the right, and goes from right to left. As it is with the sprinklings in "Eizehu Mekoman": southeast, northeast, northwest, southwest. And so it is in the nature of man to turn from right to left, as in dances. And so is our writing: from right to left. Therefore, the main thing is to always begin from the right, and to go from right to left, see there. And there is one who added to this that we can also bless in this manner always on the additional one, which is: that the lamp in which the candles are kindled should be in the tefach adjacent to the entrance, on the left side of the entrance, and he should begin with the candle actually adjacent to the entrance. And on the second night, he should begin with the second candle, and go from right to left (Taz end of subsection 6). And in Terumat HaDeshen (siman 106) he wrote: that the people of the Rhine acted like our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and the people of Austria like the Levush, see there. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, decided like the people of the Rhine. And the great authorities wrote that it is always good to place the candelabra within the space of the entrance on the doorpost, for then all of them are in the tefach adjacent to the entrance. For if he places them on the side of the wall that is next to the entrance, they will not all be in the tefach adjacent to the entrance. And so it is proper to practice.

And behold, even regarding turning to the right, where the Levush disagrees with our teacher, the Beit Yosef, the primary ruling is also according to the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef. And so it is explicitly stated in Rashi and Tosafot in Yoma (17a, starting with the words "Midraminan"), and this is the wording of Rashi, of blessed memory: For he continues counting by way of the right, from north to west, and from west to south, and from south to east. Thus far his words, and so wrote the Tosafot. Behold, from left to right is called "by way of the right" (Pri Chadash in siman 128). And behold, it is explicitly stated so regarding the sea that Solomon made in Kings (7): three facing north, and three facing west, and three facing south, and three facing east. And from this our sages, of blessed memory, derived (ibid. 58b): That all turns that you turn—it is by way of the right, see there (and this is the allusion of the Magen Avraham in subsection 5). And that which the Levush brought from the sprinklings upon the altar—this is also so, according to how he was standing outside with his face inward. And in everything that a person does, from left to right is "by way of the right." (And that which he brought proof from our writing, it is also the opposite in the writing of each letter itself in Ashurit script, for they go from left to right. And there is a great secret in this regarding writing from right to left in general, and from left to right in particular: to include the left in the right, and the right in the left, as is known to the sages of Kabbalah. And that which he wrote from the nature of dances—this is the way of nature, and not the way of the intellect. And be precise and you will find it simple.)

It is simple that one who did not recite the blessing on the first candle recites the blessing during the entire time of the lighting. However, after the lighting, he should not recite the blessing, for we require "prior to their performance." This is according to the opinion of the Rambam in chapter eleven of Berakhot. But according to those who disagree, he may recite the blessing, as we explained in Yoreh Deah siman 19 section 4, see there. However, in my humble opinion, it appears that regarding the Chanukah candle, since there is a mitzvah in the seeing, and the essence of the publicizing of the miracle is the seeing, he may recite the blessing even afterward. We wrote a reasoning similar to this in Yoreh Deah there, siman 28 section 8, regarding the matter of covering the blood. (And in the Sha'arei Teshuva, subsection 5, he did not write so, see there. But it appears to me as I have written.) And there is one who says that "She'asa Nissim" and "Shehecheyanu" he may recite even afterward, but "Lehadlik" he does not recite after the lighting of the first candle, because the rest are only for beautification, and it is not appropriate to recite a blessing over them (the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger). And I do not understand: for are the other candles any worse than the drying of the hands in washing of the hands, which also does not invalidate the mitzvah, and nevertheless, because of the drying it is called "prior to their performance," as I wrote in siman 158? And it requires further study.