Q&A: Question regarding a Hanukkah candle that went out on Friday evening
Question regarding a Hanukkah candle that went out on Friday evening
Question
With God’s help
Hello Rabbi, how are you?
I wanted to ask a question regarding lighting a Hanukkah candle on Friday evening.
Terumat HaDeshen (section 102), and following it the Shulchan Arukh (Orach Chayim 673:2), rule that if one lit a Hanukkah candle on Friday evening
and the candle went out, he is not required to relight it, even though the candle did not burn for half an hour after nightfall, since
the preparation for the commandment is like the commandment itself.
Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman explains why this is not similar to a son who cooked food for his father and the food spilled, where we would not say that since
he fulfilled the preparation for the commandment he need not fulfill the actual commandment itself; rather, he would certainly have to cook again. The difference is between commandments that are continuously incumbent upon a person and Hanukkah candles, which are only once.
I am attaching Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman’s words because I was unable to understand them. I would be very grateful if the Rabbi could shed light on his words.
Thank you very much, and Happy Hanukkah!
A.
Kovetz He’arot, section 13:
c) And certainly, if one cooked for his father and afterward the food was lost before his father ate it, he must cook again; and likewise, if one had relations with his wife and she did not conceive, he must try again to have children, even though the act of intercourse is the act of the commandment and overrides a prohibition. So too here, if it went out on Friday evening, he should have to relight. It is not similar, because there the commandment of honoring one’s father and mother and the commandment of being fruitful and multiplying are incumbent upon him at every moment, and even if he had children and they died, we rule [Yevamot 62a] that he is obligated; and similarly with honoring father and mother, even if he cooked for his father and fed him, he must cook a second time when needed, but with a Hanukkah candle, where the commandment is only once per day, once he performed the act of the commandment by lighting, he has already fulfilled his obligation:
Answer
It can be understood in a few ways:
1. A distinction between commandments of action and commandments of result.
2. A distinction between a one-time obligation and a continuous one. With his father, even if he cooked for him and the food was lost, there is now a new commandment upon him to cook for him (since he is hungry now, he is obligated to cook because of the present moment). But on Hanukkah, if he lit, he has fulfilled his obligation. The commandment does not apply to him at every moment.
Discussion on Answer
1. I wrote that a Hanukkah candle is a commandment of action, and from the moment the preparatory act was performed he fulfilled his obligation. In honoring parents, this is a commandment of result. There are situations in which the preparation itself is the commandment. We discussed this in the article on the tenth root (Its Roots Shall Send Forth). For example, tending the lamps in the Temple is the commandment, not the lighting. Or being fruitful and multiplying according to some opinions (Midah Tovah 5767, Parashat Bereshit).
2. What I meant was that when he cooked for his father, he may indeed have fulfilled his obligation, but now his father is hungry, so a new commandment takes effect upon him to cook for him. That is the meaning of saying the commandment applies at every moment. On Hanukkah, once he fulfilled his obligation, the commandment does not take effect on him again, because it is one-time.
With God’s help
Thank you very much for the answer.
1. Kovetz He’arot explicitly assumes that lighting a Hanukkah candle is also a commandment of action — he calls it (following Terumat HaDeshen) “preparation for the commandment.”
2. What the Rabbi wrote is exactly what I don’t understand. The starting point is that the lighting is viewed as preparation for the commandment.
Where does the assumption come from that if he lit (= preparation for the commandment) he has fulfilled his obligation?
It’s not clear to me why it matters whether this is a continuous commandment or a one-time one. In both cases he performed only preparation for the commandment (cooked food/lit a candle), but it did not work out that the commandment was actually fulfilled (the food spilled/the candle went out).