Hanukkah candle and Shabbat candle
Hello Rabbi,
As is known, a person is obligated to sell his covering for the sake of a Hanukkah candle, and nothing like this is said about a Shabbat candle. On the other hand, the halacha is that a Shabbat candle precedes a Hanukkah candle. So if a person does not have money for either of them and sells his covering, what should he light?
Is it possible to suggest that the Shabbat lamp is fundamentally obligatory (this is implied by Rava’s words on Shabbat 25b and by the words of Maimonides), apparently for the sake of peace in the house, even before the Sages established it as an independent mitzvah in the blessing? And from this, can we conclude that:
- When there is a real need for it for the sake of domestic peace, it is outside the order of priorities, meaning that if without it the people of the house would fall into darkness, then it is preferable;
- And when there is no real need for it for the sake of home peace, for example: when there is electric light or light from outside, or when a person needs to light one for himself – in the event that there is already one Shabbat candle – in this case, the mitzvah of the man itself is less important than the Hanukkah candle, and one does not have to sell his covering for it?
If you’re already entering into obligations that are outside of halakhic law, then there’s no need for all this. Just say that halakhic importance doesn’t necessarily reflect essential importance.
Beyond that, you are essentially saying that these two statements do not contradict each other because they do not deal with the same situation: in principle, a Hanukkah candle is preferable to the mitzvah of a Shabbat candle, but a Shabbat candle itself (not the mitzvah) is preferable to a Hanukkah candle.
It seems to me that the simple interpretation is that it is indeed a non-transitive relationship (there are others in the halacha). For example, the loss of a father and the honor of his father (Tos. P. B. D.M.) and so on. That is, when he has ten shekels and has the option of buying either a candle for Chanukah or a candle for Shabbat with them, he should buy one for Shabbat. When he has a Shabbat candle and does not have a Chanukah candle, he should sell everything he has in order to buy one. And when he does not have a Shabbat candle, he is not obligated to sell everything he has in order to buy one.
According to this, in the situation you described, after he sold his blanket, he must use it to buy a Shabbat candle and not a Hanukkah candle. Because after selling, he has money for one of them, and in this case a Shabbat candle is preferable.
It is true that the explanation for this should be discussed. It seems that there are different axes of priority here: the normal needs of one’s household are preferable to a Shabbat candle, but not preferable to a Hanukkah candle. But a Shabbat candle is preferable to a Hanukkah candle.
According to the Peri Magadim, even with a Shabbat candle, one must sell its covering. (So the question does not begin) and his words were cited in the commentary on Halacha, sign Rasaj’
You have proven well that you are neither a citizen of the land nor a fool. You can go back to your original pen name, Tzachi, and that's it.
https://din.org.il/2016/11/12/%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%A9%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%9C%D7%95-%D7%9B%D7%A1%D7%A3-%D7%9C%D7%A0%D7%A8-%D7%97%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A0%D7%A8-%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA/
Thank you, Kofta and I.
The truth is, I didn't come here to prove anything about myself. But I will consider your offer positively.
I received a similar question some time ago from my former student, Rabbi Bezalel Daniel:
One day, I was asked if one should sell the covering for a Shabbat candle. The answer is that it is not explicitly stated in the poskim.
On the other hand, it is explicitly stated for a Hanukkah candle.
So a Hanukkah candle is greater than a Shabbat candle.
But if it only has one candle, one should light a Shabbat candle, because of the peace of the house.
So a Shabbat candle is greater than a Hanukkah candle.
A paradox.
One solution is to say that it was never said that one should not sell the covering for a Shabbat candle.
Perhaps, it seems a little narrow-minded to me.
I tried to think that there might be different levels here:
Nisa's publications are more important than my personal comfort, and therefore the covering is sold. On the other hand, Shalom Beit is more important than Nisa's publications. And then there is no easy way out, since these are different levels. (We should assume that my personal comfort is more important than peace of mind. If it weren’t for Demastafina, I would say that if I’m not comfortable, there will be no peace of mind, and therefore it’s wrong to sell the covers for a Shabbat candle.)
I think that’s nice, but in practice (something we don’t like to talk about) it doesn’t help. Because I’ll sell the covers to buy a Hanukkah candle. Then when I buy the candle, I’ll suddenly have one candle, which I’ll have to light as a Shabbat candle. I’ll have to sell an extra cover anyway. And if I don’t have an extra cover, I’ll have a Shabbat candle and not a Hanukkah candle.
I’d love to know if the rabbi has a solution to this.
And this is what I answered him:
My answer:
Bezalel, peace, and happy Hanukkah.
Mathematicians define transitivity in the following way: If A<B and also B<C then A<C
But not every property has transitivity. For example, if A is the father of B and B is the father of C, then it is not true that A is the father of C.
Note that in defining transitivity we referred to the relation “<“. There are other relations that are not transitive (such as being the father of).
But even with regard to the relation “greater than” there is not necessarily transitivity, if we can say that A is greater than B in terms of P (but not in terms of Q) and B is greater than C in terms of Q (but not P). Like what you wrote.
For example, the relation of similarity is apparently transitive: if A is similar to B and B is similar to C, then A is similar to C. But in the work of a builder, Abhab (in the article) wrote and quoted in the Book of Kehi (in the sign of a building in contradiction with tools), that the origin of the work of a builder is building a house. There we group parts (bricks, wood) and create a functional space from them. This origin has two antecedents (according to Maimonides): Megban – grouping of parts that does not create a space, and making a tent – creating a space that is not by grouping parts. Note that the two antecedents are similar to the origin (in different respects), but there is not the slightest similarity between the two. If so, the relation “similar to” Can deal with a particular aspect and not another (such as the relation “greater than”), and not be transitive.
This is probably the solution to the collection of loops raised by the commentators (Thus’ on the loss of his master and himself and the honor of his father, Hat”s on a similar loop in the blessings, the well-known dilemma of matzah from the new bread, and more). There is no transitivity there, and therefore there is no difficulty in the fact that there is no hierarchy, but rather a circle is created. Although in practice this can create a practical dilemma: what to do first (what to prefer). This is a conflict (what to do) but not a contradiction (i.e. claims that cannot be reconciled and it is impossible to adopt both/all three together).
If so, in general, there is no need for transitivity everywhere.
What you are presenting here is not a contradiction (precisely because of what you explained, that there is priority here in different respects, and therefore there is no problem that transitivity does not hold) but at most a conflict. But you claimed that this conflict is intractable. Note that even if this is true, there is still no problem in principle. We simply do not know how to act in practice, but this is not a fundamental/theoretical problem.
Now we must discuss whether there is indeed no practical solution to this conflict. What you are describing is that on Shabbat Hanukkah one must sell a kasut to buy a Shabbat candle (because one does this to buy a Hanukkah candle and then prefers a Shabbat candle). On a regular Shabbat, this of course does not exist. It is like a migo that is worn out on Shabbat, but is worn out on the Sukkah only on the Shabbat of Sukkot. Here too, a migo that must sell a kasut to buy a Hanukkah candle must sell it to buy a Shabbat candle.
But I do not see this as a problem. Here are some of my thoughts on the matter:
1. Indeed, on the Shabbat of Hanukkah, one must sell a kasut to buy a Hanukkah candle, and then light a Shabbat candle with it, and now sell another kasut and buy a Hanukkah candle. That's it. There is no cycle that continues any further than that.
2. One could say that even on the Shabbat of Hanukkah, one sells a kasut to light a Hanukkah candle and lights a Hanukkah candle, not a Shabbat one. And the reason for this is that we have already disposed of a Shabbat candle because we have no money and we do not need to sell a kasut for it. And once we have disposed of a Shabbat candle, we buy a Hanukkah candle and light it.
3. And another note. When you light the candle that you bought for the price of the kasut, you do not have to decide whether it is a Hanukkah candle or a Shabbat candle. Leave it to God to decide. You may not be able to recite a blessing, but blessings do not prevent you. Or perhaps you can recite both blessings and the candle will serve both purposes (although in doing so you will be fulfilling the mitzvah of halukul halukul).
Just another clarification: Do rejects falsehood. And what about when there is a do versus a do, or no versus no? These are examples that you wouldn't call a paradox, but there is a practical dilemma (conflict) here. The same is true with us.
(In parentheses, when there is a do versus a do or no versus no there is a solution: falsehood is better. But I just wanted to illustrate the difference between a contradiction/paradox and a conflict/dilemma).
The truth is that the law is found in the Poskim.
Found under the name of the PMG in the commentary on Halacha, section 3, section 2, on the Fatahs.
A. Regarding the practical solutions to the conflict. It seems simple that since they said that one does not sell a kasut to light a Shabbat candle, then one also buys a kasut instead of a Shabbat candle. In other words, a naked person who finds a sum of money on the street on Shabbat eve buys a kasut instead of a candle. It seems that you do not accept this assumption that money and a kasut were the same, but rather divide between selling and not buying. What is the explanation?
[In the first solution, you suggested that he sell a kasut (to light a Hanukkah candle) and receive money and then buy a Shabbat candle with it, but according to the above assumption, the paradox remains, because with the money he should buy a kasut for himself, and Hanukkah instead of a kasut, and Shabbat instead of Hanukkah.
In the second solution, you suggested that after he sells his kasut, he should light a Hanukkah candle, because the Shabbat candle has been canceled out of importance and is not renewed. This is a nice formalistic idea, but according to the above assumption, the paradox still exists in a naked person who has money: what can he buy for Chanukah or Shabbat or Kasot or Chanukah. ]
[By the way, what is the ruling regarding a regular Shabbat candle, let's say there is an obligation to sell its covering, if his wife does not want him to sell it? Is it because he is completing a house that he must not sell it, but this itself was the regulation, to buy a Shabbat candle for the peace of the house]
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
