Siman 677

It is stated in the Gemara (23a): A guest is obligated in the Hanukkah candle, but he may participate with a perutah together with the homeowner. That is to say: one who does not have a wife and a home, but rather his permanent residence is alone in another's house—the obligation is upon him to light the Hanukkah candle. And if he does not wish to light by himself—he participates with the homeowner, and one of them recites the blessing, and the second answers "Amen." But when he is a guest, and he has a wife and a home in another place—they light in his home, and he is also exempted. However, some say that regarding the blessings of "She'asa Nissim" and "Shehecheyanu"—he is obligated himself to see Hanukkah candles, and to recite the two blessings on the first night, and on all other nights only one blessing, "She'asa Nissim." And we have already written regarding this in the previous siman, section 7, and that our opinion inclines thus, even though there are those who disagree. See there.

The Rif and the Rambam wrote at the end of the fourth chapter: That a guest who had an entrance for himself, even though they kindle on his behalf in his home or he participates with prutot – nevertheless, he must kindle alone because of suspicion, see there. And it appears that this is only according to the law of the Gemara, when they would kindle at the entrances of courtyards or houses. But for us, who kindle inside the house – there is no suspicion. And there is one who wrote that nowadays when we kindle inside, if the guest has a room for himself – he kindles (Magen Avraham, subsection 3). And I do not know why: For behold, in the house suspicion is not applicable, since the members of the household know that he participated with prutot, or that he has a wife and home in another place? And it appears to me that certainly when he participates with prutot – he does not need to kindle for himself. Rather, when he does not participate, and the members of the household think that he does not have a wife and home – in this, perhaps there is suspicion, and it requires further study. And there is one who adds further to say: That even if he does not have a room for himself, since the custom has become that every guest kindles – he too is obligated to kindle because of suspicion, for who knows if he is a bachelor or married (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 1)? And behold, if the custom is so – certainly we follow the custom. But that which he wrote "for who knows etc." – is not understood: For this is only applicable to a youth of tender years. But one who is of many years – it is obvious that he has a wife. Therefore, all of this requires further study. And know that there is one who wrote that when he kindles because of suspicion – he does not need to recite a berakhah (Knesset HaGedolah). And it is not so, for since he kindles for himself, if so, he does not wish to fulfill his obligation through that of the members of his household, and why should he not recite a berakhah (and so it is implied from Magen Avraham, subsection 4)? And know that this, which in the time of the Gemara required kindling because of suspicion when he has an entrance open for himself, as I have written – this is even if the two entrances are on one side, he must recite a berakhah. And it is not similar to siman 675, for there the suspicion is upon the homeowner, and the people of his city know that both of them belong to one man. But regarding the suspicion of a guest – certainly there is suspicion even on one side, for behold, he does not belong to this homeowner (ibid., subsection 2).

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote: That which was said, that if one has an entrance open for himself he must kindle at his entrance—this is even though that house is designated only for sleeping, and he eats at the table of the master of the house. And the same law applies to a son who eats with his father. Thus far his words. And even if he eats regularly with his father, since for sleeping he has a room for himself—he must kindle because of suspicion. And even though the primary place is the place where one eats, as our teacher, the Rema, wrote, that there are those who say that in this time when we kindle truly indoors—one should kindle in the place where he eats, and such is the custom. Thus far his words. Nevertheless, according to the law of the Gemara, regarding an entrance open for himself, where the suspicion is because of those who pass by there, and they do not know that he does not eat there—therefore he must kindle. But in this time when the kindling is indoors—it depends only on the place where he eats. Therefore, a guest when he eats with the master of the house, and certainly a son who eats with his father—does not need to kindle for himself in his room, for the members of the household know that he eats together, and he is included among the members of the household. And the mitzvah of the Chanukah candle is "a man and his household," meaning: for all the members of the household. (So it appears in my humble opinion. And it appears to me that this is also the intention of the Magen Avraham in subsection 6, see there. Examine it and you will find it easy.) And it is simple that one who eats in the house of his fellow occasionally—must kindle for himself, or his wife kindles for him in his house, in the place where he dwells. (Ibid. subsection 7. And regarding what he wrote, that nevertheless the mitzvah is greater through himself than through his agent, see there—I do not know his intention. For if so, Rava in the Gemara—why did he not do so? And it requires further study.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2: A katan who has reached the age of chinuch—he must kindle. Thus far his words. This law should have been written at the end of siman 675, and our teacher, the Rema, wrote it there. However, here it is a different matter, for there we are dealing with a case where the custom is that each of the members of the household kindles for himself. But here we are not dealing with this, rather the intention is: a katan who has a house for himself—he is obligated to kindle because of suspicion, like an adult (and so it is implied from Magen Avraham subsection 8, see there). And there is one who exempts ketanim (ibid.), and his reason is: since it is only because of suspicion, we are not obligated to train even the katan in this (Machatzit HaShekel).

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 3: Some say that even though they kindle for him within his home, if he is in a place where there are no Jews – he kindles with blessings. Thus far their words. And the reason is: for he is obligated in seeing them, because of pirsumei nisa. And here – he will not see the candles burning. They further wrote: that even if he is among Jews, and sees the candles, if he wishes to be stringent upon himself and kindle for himself – he kindles and recites the blessings over them. And such is the custom. Thus far their words. That is to say: even though he has a wife and a home, and she will certainly kindle for him, nevertheless he can say: I do not wish to fulfill my obligation with this, and I will kindle for myself. And such is indeed our custom, that anyone who is on a journey – kindles in the place where he is, even though they kindle for him in his home. And this is included in the category of hiddur (ibid. subsection 9 in the name of the Terumat HaDeshen). And the Maharil wrote that it is a widespread custom that guests and young men kindle (ibid.). And it appears in my humble opinion that now, since most travel is by railways, and it is difficult to kindle there as is known – he can rely simply on his home, that they kindle there. However, he will not see Hanukkah candles, and therefore it is good that he kindle one candle in the carriage where he sits, and recite the blessing over it, for with one candle he can act so that the passengers will not object. And it is better not to be among the mehadrin and fulfill the core of the mitzvah, than not to see a Hanukkah candle at all. And all the more so one who has no home, who is obligated by the law to kindle there, if he will not arrive at some place during that night.

The Tur wrote: That which remains of the oil and the wicks on the first night – one adds to it and kindles on the second night. That which remains on the second night – one adds to it and kindles on the third, and so too on all the nights. That which remains of it on the eighth night – one makes a bonfire for it by itself and burns it, for it was set aside for its mitzvah. Thus far his words. And this is from the Pesikta, as the Rosh wrote in the name of the Sheiltot. And the commentators raised a difficulty: for above in siman 672 it is explained that that which remains of the oil after the required measure – it is permitted to extinguish it and use it. And they answered: that there it deals with one who put more than the required measure, and it was not set aside for its mitzvah except for the required measure. But here it deals with where they put according to the required measure, and from this there remained, which is certainly forbidden (Beit Yosef and Bach). And based on this, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: That which remains on the eighth day from the oil required for the measure of kindling – one makes a bonfire for it and burns it by itself, for it was set aside for its mitzvah. Thus far his words. But if he put more than the required measure – the remainder is permitted. And the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch agreed to this, see there. And there is one who answered: that here it deals with where he put it without specification, and therefore it is holy even more than the required measure, for presumably he set aside all of it. But above it deals with where he did not explicitly set aside except according to the required measure (ibid. in the name of R. I. Aboab). And there are those who rejected this answer, for even without specification – it is not holy except according to the required measure (Beit Yosef, and Magen Avraham subsection 10, and Taz there). And there is one who answered that even here the intention is not that it is forbidden to benefit from this, but rather the intention is that he should remove it from the world. And also above this is the intention, for the rabbis treated it like an accessory of holiness which requires genizah (see Taz). That is to say: that it should not be cast away in disgrace. But this is not implied by the wording of the Tur.

And I wonder at our teachers: for according to the wording of the Tur, this is not a contradiction at all to there, as certainly it was not set aside for more than the required measure. However, here it is a different matter, and that is: that when it remains from the first, and he left it for the second night—behold, he set aside the remainder for the second, and similarly from the second to the third etc., and that which remains from the seventh—he set aside for the eighth, and this is certainly forbidden. And the next day on the eighth when he added—it was only forbidden according to the required measure. But who is to say that the remainder from the seventh was burned, and this which he added on the eighth remained? Perhaps that which he added was burned, and the remainder is that which he set aside from yesterday? And this is why they were precise to say: "The remainder from the first, he adds etc.," when it should have said: "The remainder from a Chanukah candle—he makes a bonfire and burns it." Rather, it is certain that only in such a case does he burn it, for the reason we have written. But when one puts oil into a Chanukah candle—the surplus is not holy.

Oil that was set aside for the Hanukkah lamp, which became mixed with other oil, and there is not sixty in the remainder to nullify it, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that one may not add oil until there is sixty in order to nullify it. For one may not nullify a prohibition lekhatchilah, even regarding a rabbinic prohibition. And even though in Yoreh Deah siman 99 it was explained that some say regarding a rabbinic prohibition, when it was mixed and there is not sixty, that one may add until sixty – nevertheless, here it is like a davar she-yesh lo matirin, for it is fit to be kept for next year for the Hanukkah lamp. And even though the Tur wrote that one should not keep it, so as not to come to a pitfall, and even putting it in a loathsome vessel does not help, for it does not become loathsome for lighting, nevertheless, since according to the essential law it is permitted to keep it – it is like a davar she-yesh lo matirin (and this is the intent of the Magen Avraham subsection 12). And even though regarding wood that fell from a palm tree on Yom Tov, we permitted in siman 507 to increase prepared wood over them and burn them – this is because one does not benefit from it until after its consumption (Tur), and as it is found at the beginning of Beitzah. This is not the case here, where one would benefit at the time of lighting when he adds in nullification until sixty. (And it requires further study why in the Shulchan Aruch they did not write the words of the Tur, that it is forbidden to keep it for next year because of a pitfall. And perhaps he holds that in any case: if we judge it as a davar she-yesh lo matirin – we shall permit him to keep it, for it would be a contradiction. Examine it and you will find it simple.)