Question

Peace and greetings to my teacher and rabbi:

Several questions:

A) Choosing a prayer leader
We find a dispute between the Magen Avraham and the Taz regarding the law of a prayer leader—whether it is preferable to have a righteous person who is the son of a righteous person, or a righteous person who is the son of a wicked person. Regarding choosing a prayer leader, we find a dispute between the Magen Avraham and the Taz on this issue—whether it is preferable to have a righteous person who is the son of a righteous person, or a righteous person who is the son of a wicked person. See Iyun Tefillah, Parashah 136, which explains the view of the Magen Avraham (Orach Chayim 53:8), that it is good to seek out a prayer leader who is a righteous person the son of a righteous person, because the prayer of a righteous person the son of a righteous person is not comparable to the prayer of a righteous person the son of a wicked person. However, the Taz (ibid. 3) wrote, based on the words of the Rosh, that on the contrary, the prayer of a righteous person who is the son of a wicked person is preferable. This is based on what the Tur (ibid.) writes in the name of the Rosh (responsa, klal 4, no. 22), that the qualities of the prayer leader do not depend on family lineage, and if he comes from a lowly family but is righteous, it is good to draw near offspring from those who were distant, as it says (Isaiah 57:19), “Peace, peace to the distant and to the near.” See there. But this needs examination, for the passage is explicit (Yevamot 64a) that the prayer of a righteous person the son of a righteous person is not comparable to the prayer of a righteous person the son of a wicked person, so why does he hold that a prayer leader who is a righteous person the son of a wicked person is preferable? [See also the Pri Megadim (ibid., Mishbetzot Zahav 3), who writes that even according to the Taz, who holds that the advantage of a righteous person the son of a wicked person is greater than that of a righteous person the son of a righteous person, that is only during the rest of the year, but on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur it is better to choose a righteous person the son of a righteous person. So too wrote Mateh Ephraim (Elef LaMateh, sec. 581). This whole matter requires examination. More on this issue.}.
B) In the Shulchan Arukh (676:3) the law of the blessing recited by one who sees is brought, namely, that someone who does not light a Hanukkah candle and no one lights on his behalf at home recites the blessing “Who performed miracles” upon seeing his fellow’s Hanukkah candle, and “Who has kept us alive” if this happened on the first day. This requires considerable examination: what exactly is the “Who has kept us alive” blessing of the observer referring to? If we say that he blesses over the very time of Hanukkah itself [like the time-blessing on a festival, which one may say even in the marketplace if he did not recite it in kiddush], the Sha’ar HaTziyun (676, note 3) was uncertain whether they instituted the time-blessing over the actual day of Hanukkah itself, [and according to the Pri Chadash (676:1) it is obvious that they did not institute “Who has kept us alive” over the essence of Hanukkah itself], so why did he not resolve his doubt from here? And it is also difficult to say that he recites “Who has kept us alive” over the commandment fulfilled through seeing, because if so, then by law someone who saw and recited “Who has kept us alive” on the first day, and on the second day lit at home, ought to recite “Who has kept us alive” a second time, since regarding the commandment of lighting he has still not recited “Who has kept us alive.” Yet the Shulchan Arukh (ibid.) makes clear that in such a case he does not recite “Who has kept us alive” on the second day.

C) The Shulchan Arukh (Orach Chayim 676:1) writes: “One who lights on the first night recites three blessings, etc., including ‘Who has kept us alive’; and if he did not recite the time-blessing on the first night, he recites it on the second night or whenever he remembers.” In Chayei Adam (part 2–3, klal 148) it is written that the same applies to “Who has kept us alive” over the commandment of taking the lulav: if he forgot and did not bless on the first day, he may still bless even on the seventh day. However, the Pri Megadim (Mishbetzot Zahav sec. 662, no. 1) wrote that if he took the lulav on the first day and did not recite “Who has kept us alive,” he can no longer recite it afterward. This is also brought by Sha’ar HaTziyun (ibid. no. 4). This needs clarification: what is the difference between the Hanukkah candle and taking the lulav? With regard to Hanukkah candles, everyone agrees that even if one lit and did not bless on the first night, he goes back and blesses on the second, as the Shulchan Arukh rules there explicitly. [One might have said that the Pri Megadim holds that one does not recite “Who has kept us alive” over the commandment except at the beginning of its performance, but the blessing of “Who has kept us alive” on Hanukkah is also a blessing over the day itself, as explained by the Meiri, who says that someone who has no candles recites “Who has kept us alive” over the day itself. Therefore he blesses also on the second night, like one who did not bless over the festival at its outset and blesses on the remaining days of the festival. But one cannot say this, because in the Pri Megadim עצמו (Mishbetzot Zahav 676:2) it is clear that one does not bless over the day without lighting, so it is proven that he holds that the blessing of “Who has kept us alive” refers to the commandment of lighting, and nevertheless the Shulchan Arukh rules that he may recite “Who has kept us alive” on the second night. So the question returns: what is the difference between lulav and Hanukkah candles?]
D) In Shabbat 21b: “What is Hanukkah?” And Rashi explains: “For which miracle did they establish it?” It is clear from the Talmud there that this is referring to the miracle of the oil [and so too writes Emek Berakhah]. This is difficult, because there (23a) it says that a woman is obligated in the Hanukkah miracle because “they too were included in that miracle”; see Rashi there, who explains that this is because of the governor’s decree, and through a woman the miracle occurred. This is difficult, because the lighting of the Hanukkah candle is for the miracle of the oil, so why is a woman obligated in it because of the Greek decrees? That is not the reason for the obligation of lighting the Hanukkah candle. Further, Rashi should have explained that they too were included in the miracle of the oil, for that is what the Hanukkah candles were instituted for. [Perhaps Rashi holds that women were not commanded to see to it that the menorah in the Temple be lit, and therefore they were not part of this miracle of the oil. But if so, it is difficult: how does their having been part of another miracle, that of the Greek decrees, help obligate them in Hanukkah candles, which are because of the miracle of the oil?]