Chanukah: May We Benefit from the Light of the Menorah?

Topics

• The Issur of Using the Light of Ner Chanukah
• Heker and Pirsumei Nisa
• The Resemblance to the Menorah in the Mikdash
• Huktzah Lemitzvaso
• "Haneiros Halalu Kodesh Heim"—What Kind of Kedushah?
• Could People Benefit from the Menorah in the Beis HaMikdash?
• Deliberate Use and Incidental Benefit
• The Levush: We May Not Go to the Menorah to Use It
• The Menorah in the Mikdash: What Are We Comparing?
• Kedushas Kavod
• Tashmish Shel Mitzvah
• Baal HaMaor: Does the Reason Change the Halachah?
• Does the Prohibition Apply to Everyone?
• Learning Hilchos Chanukah by the Chanukah Lights
• Scented Candles
• Candles That Produce Music
• Warming Your Hands by the Menorah
• Photography of the Menorah
• Eating Near the Chanukah Candles
• Why Did the Gemara Choose Counting Money?
• Being Afraid of the Dark
• Do Electric Lights Replace the Shamash?
• What If the Shamash Burns Out?
• Where Do You Stand When Using the Shamash?
• The Custom of Refraining from Melachah
• How Far Does the Prohibition of Melachah Extend?
• Is Chanukah a Yom Tov?

Transcript

## The Issur of Using the Light of Ner Chanukah

Today I want to learn the *sugya* and *halachah* of **אסור להשתמש לאורה**—the prohibition against using the light of the Chanukah candles for one's own purposes.

Everybody knows the *halachah*: we are not supposed to use the Chanukah lights, and that is why we generally light an additional candle, the **shamash**. But, *rabosai*, unless we understand the **geder** of this *issur*, we won't understand the many practical *halachos* that come from it.

I want to begin from the Gemara, establish the possible **taamim**, and see how the differences lead to different *psakim*. This is the way to learn *halachah*: first the *yesod*, then the *nafka minos*.

The Gemara in **Shabbos 21b** brings different opinions about using the Chanukah lights. One opinion permits it; another maintains **"אסור להשתמש לאורה"**—one may not make use of its light. Tosafos concludes **"וכן הלכתא"**, that the prohibition is the accepted *halachah*. So we know **what** the *halachah* is. But **why** was it prohibited?

In **Shabbos 22a**, the Gemara discusses **"אסור להרצות מעות כנגד נר חנוכה"**—one may not count or examine money by the light of the Chanukah lamp.

The Gemara asks: **"וכי נר קדושה יש בה?"** Does the lamp actually have inherent *kedushah*? The Gemara responds by invoking the principle **"שלא יהו מצוות בזויות עליו"**—that mitzvos not become cheap or contemptible in a person's eyes.

Listen to that *lashon*. It isn't simply that the object has inherent sanctity like a *Sefer Torah*. We must not relate to the mitzvah casually or treat its light as an ordinary tool. There is an issue of **bizui mitzvah**.

But let me ask a *kashya*. Why did the Gemara choose **counting money**? It could have said you cannot read a book by the Chanukah lights, or perform any other task. Why this particular example? Later, when we see the *Rishonim*, we'll understand why the Gemara's choice matters.

And here is a further problem: **Rashi** gives a different-sounding explanation, connected with **היכר**, making it recognizable that these are lights of a mitzvah. If the lamps are used for ordinary lighting, one may not recognize that they were lit for Chanukah. But the Gemara spoke about **bizui mitzvah**.

Are those really two explanations? Is Rashi disagreeing? Or can they be reconciled? That is the *sugya* I want to work through.

## Heker and Pirsumei Nisa

Think about what Chanukah means in the home. On Pesach there is a Seder, a Haggadah, and many visible mitzvos. On Chanukah, the central visible mitzvah is **the lights**. They announce the miracle. That is **pirsumei nisa**.

Imagine a person walking into a house in the time when lamps were used for ordinary light. He sees candles burning. How will he know they are **neiros Chanukah** and not simply the regular lights of the house?

If those very lights are used for ordinary purposes, perhaps it is no longer **nikar** that they were kindled for a mitzvah. The **heker** is lost, and with it something essential to the *pirsumei nisa*.

That is how I initially hear Rashi. The lighting must be recognizable as a mitzvah. Today we have electric lighting, and the situation is different, but Chazal established the *takkanah* in a world where candles were also the source of ordinary light.

Yet the Gemara says **"שלא יהו מצוות בזויות עליו"**. It sounds like the reason is **bizui mitzvah**, not simply the absence of *pirsumei nisa*. The **Ramban** takes the degradation of the mitzvah very seriously. He explains that if we use the lights for ordinary needs, it appears as though the mitzvah is not especially precious to us.

I also saw an explanation attributed to **Rav Yonasan Eibeschutz**. A person who lights and immediately makes use of the light may give the impression that he performed the mitzvah only because he would also get some benefit from it. That itself lowers the dignity of the mitzvah. You see how this could connect the issue of **heker** with **bizui mitzvah**.

But I'm still not completely satisfied. If we say the entire problem is *bizui mitzvah*, what exactly does Rashi mean by the lack of *heker*? And if we say the entire problem is the loss of *pirsumei nisa*, why does the Gemara express itself in terms of degradation?

Don't rush to answer. I want you to see that this is not merely a debate in *lomdus*. It determines whether some very practical uses of the Chanukah lamps are permitted.

## The Resemblance to the Menorah in the Mikdash

The **Rashba** brings another *mahalach*: our Chanukah lights are connected with the **Menorah of the Beis HaMikdash**. We kindle them in remembrance of the miracle of the Menorah, and therefore treat them with special reverence.

But immediately there is a *kashya*. What exactly was the law about benefiting from the Menorah's light in the Mikdash? Was every incidental benefit from that light forbidden? We find *Midrashim* describing the Menorah's light reaching beyond the Sanctuary. How would that fit a blanket *issur hana'ah*?

And what is the distinction between using an object deliberately and merely benefiting because light is present?

The more we examine these reasons, the more interesting the *sugya* becomes. So keep the alternatives in mind: **heker**, **bizui mitzvah**, and **the relationship to the Menorah in the Mikdash**. We still have another approach to learn.

## Huktzah Lemitzvaso

There is another explanation brought in the *Rishonim*, including discussion in the **Ramban** and **Meiri**: **הוקצה למצותו**—the lamp or its light is designated for its mitzvah.

We find a similar concept by **noi sukkah**, decorations set aside for the mitzvah of Sukkah. A thing designated for a mitzvah is not necessarily available for our ordinary use while its mitzvah applies.

So now we have several potential explanations for **אסור להשתמש לאורה**. First, the lights must remain recognizable as **neiros mitzvah**. Second, using them for personal convenience constitutes **bizui mitzvah**. Third, the lights recall the **Menorah of the Beis HaMikdash**. Fourth, they may be considered **huktzah lemitzvasan**.

Do you see why I want to establish the *taamim* first? Once you know the reason, you can begin working out which uses are included.

Let me give you a surprising example. All the newspapers publish photographs of *gedolim* lighting Chanukah candles. But I saw a *teshuvah* attributed to **Shevet HaLevi** raising a question about taking such photographs.

Why would taking a picture be a problem? There are two possible issues. First, a camera needs light; perhaps the photo actually uses the light of the Chanukah candles. Second, even if the extra light is irrelevant, perhaps a person has turned the Menorah into a **prop**, making personal use of an object designated for the mitzvah.

I'm not giving you a blanket prohibition on photography; the exact *teshuvah* and the different rulings need to be considered. I want to show you how far the *sugya* can extend.

Now take another example. A person sits by the lights and reads **Haneiros Halalu** from a *siddur*. You might say he is using their light to read. But what is he reading? A declaration **about the mitzvah of those very lights**.

Could that be different from using them to read something unrelated? If the concern is *huktzah lemitzvaso*, perhaps using the light for an activity that is itself connected with the mitzvah is not the same as ordinary personal use.

Compare it to a Sukkah. Decorations that serve the mitzvah are part of the *avodah* of Sukkah. Does using something for the mitzvah itself differ from using it for an unrelated private purpose? That is the kind of distinction we have to examine.

And what about the **shamash**? Does one shamash make every other use acceptable? I don't think the answer is that simple. We need to study what the shamash accomplishes before making practical conclusions.

## "Haneiros Halalu Kodesh Heim"—What Kind of Kedushah?

There are also *derush* explanations for the prohibition of using the light. One teaching associates the Menorah with **Torah**. Just as a person may not use the Torah for his own personal advantage, so the Chanukah lights, which symbolize Torah, should not be reduced to an instrument of private benefit.

Another approach warns that when we take personal *hana'ah* from the mitzvah, we weaken its spiritual purpose. These are valuable *derush* ideas, but I want to keep them distinct from the **halachic reasons** we find in the *Gemara* and *Rishonim*.

Listen to **Haneiros Halalu**: **"הנרות הללו קודש הם ואין לנו רשות להשתמש בהם אלא לראותם בלבד."** These lights are holy, and we have no permission to use them, only to look at them.

What does **קודש הם** mean? Does the Chanukah lamp actually possess the same kind of *kedushah* as an object used in the Beis HaMikdash? The Gemara itself asked **"וכי נר קדושה יש בה?"** and answered in terms of *bizui mitzvah*.

Perhaps the word **kedushah** in our *nusach* is not a legal assertion that the physical flame is a consecrated Mikdash object. It may refer to **reverence**, the respect due to something dedicated to a mitzvah.

There is a discussion in the **Ramban** on *Meseches Megillah* regarding the *kedushah* of a *beis haknesses* and the concept of **kedushas kavod**—a sanctity expressed in honor and proper conduct. I want to consider whether that kind of concept helps explain our *sugya*.

But some *Acharonim* take the analogy to the Menorah more literally. A *teshuvah* attributed here to the **Binyan Shlomo** develops the question of whether the Chanukah lights have a form of *kedushah*, and even connects this with the *machlokes* of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel over the number of lamps: does the principle **"מעלין בקודש ואין מורידין"** play a role in defining their sanctity?

These are subtle issues. We shouldn't settle them with a slogan.

## Could People Benefit from the Menorah in the Beis HaMikdash?

I want to return to the Menorah itself. There is a *Midrash* describing its light as reaching the courtyards of Yerushalayim. If its illumination spread outside the Sanctuary, surely people could not prevent themselves from receiving any incidental light.

So what is the *issur*? Was deliberate use of the Menorah's light prohibited, while ordinary light reaching beyond it was not? That would be a very important distinction.

There are sources discussing the sanctity of the Menorah and its *avodah*, and even whether looking at it was treated with special restrictions. But such statements require careful examination in their original contexts. I want to read the sources inside before assuming they all establish the same type of prohibition.

Here is another question: if the Menorah was the model for Chanukah, which aspect are we copying? Its light? Its location? Its *kedushah*? Or simply its role as the Menorah of the miracle?

That brings us to the *Rashba*, and to the question of what kind of **use** Chazal actually prohibited.

## Deliberate Use and Incidental Benefit

A distinction attributed in this *sugya* to **Rav Elyashiv** is between deliberately **using** the Chanukah lights and receiving a benefit **memeila**, incidentally, without turning toward the lamps for that purpose.

Look carefully at the wording of the Gemara: **"אסור להשתמש לאורה."** It doesn't simply announce, "All benefit from this light is forbidden." It says a person may not **make use of** the light.

And what is the example of the Gemara? **"להרצות מעות"**—to bring coins close to the lamp and examine them. That is a deliberate act of making use of the light.

Suppose you walk into a dark hallway and the Chanukah lights, shining from another room, make it possible to see where you're walking. You have not gone to the lamps to use them. Their light is there, and you happen to benefit. Does that count as **mishtamesh le'orah**?

According to this distinction, **hana'ah de'memeila** need not be the use prohibited by Chazal. But I do not want you to take that as permission to create unsafe conditions around lit candles or to use them deliberately for personal needs. We have to know exactly when the *poskim* permit a particular situation.

Now someone will immediately say, **"But there is a shamash!"** Fine. Let's understand what the shamash does.

Is one little shamash actually lighting a hallway forty or fifty feet away? In practice the light may come almost entirely from the mitzvah candles. So we have to ask whether the shamash is intended to provide adequate alternative illumination or to establish a **heker** that the other candles are for the mitzvah.

Some *Rishonim*, brought in the discussion of the **Kolbo** and **Orchos Chaim**, explain the prohibition very carefully, including the concern that an alternative light might go out and one might then use the Chanukah lights. Others focus on the *heker* established by the additional lamp. The exact texts need to be checked.

You see, the mere presence of a shamash does not automatically settle every case.

## The Levush: We May Not Go to the Menorah to Use It

There is a beautiful *yesod* I saw in the **Levush**. Think about the Menorah in the Beis HaMikdash. It stood in the Sanctuary. People did not go inside the *Heichal* in order to make use of its illumination.

Perhaps that is what our Chanukah lighting recalls. We are not saying that the light of the Menorah couldn't reach elsewhere. We are saying that **people did not deliberately go to the Menorah to use it for their own purposes**.

That gives a remarkable way of understanding our *issur*. It is not necessarily a blanket ban on every indirect benefit arising from the flame. It is a restriction on **turning the mitzvah into our own instrument**.

I want to study that *Levush* inside, because the precise wording is important. But if that *mahalach* is correct, many practical distinctions begin to make sense: using the light intentionally, benefiting *memeila*, reading something for the mitzvah itself, and using the candles for unrelated personal convenience.

*Rabosai*, this is why we're learning the *taamim*. The *geder* of the *issur* determines how the *halachah* applies.

## The Menorah in the Mikdash: What Are We Comparing?

Let us stay with the explanation that the Chanukah lights commemorate the **Menorah in the Beis HaMikdash**.

You might ask: is the comparison exact in every detail? In the Beis HaMikdash, the Menorah stood inside the *Heichal*. But according to some interpretations of the Chanukah miracle, the victorious Chashmona'im may have kindled lights in a different place. We have to establish those details before building a *halachah* from them.

And there is another interesting distinction. We say **הדלקה עושה מצוה** for Chanukah—that the act of lighting is the mitzvah (Shabbos 23a). Does the same terminology and law apply in exactly the same manner to the Menorah in the Beis HaMikdash? The *sugyos* in *Hilchos Kodshim* are complex. One cannot simply assume the procedures are identical.

I am raising these *kashyos* because I want to know how far the *Levush* and the *Rashba* intend the comparison to go. Perhaps they mean the central idea—the Chanukah lights commemorate the Menorah and must be treated with honor—even if not every practical detail is copied.

## Kedushas Kavod

Now return to **"הנרות הללו קודש הם"**. What exactly is the *kedushah*?

The Ramban discusses the **kedushah of a beis haknesses** in his writings on Megillah, and there is a way of understanding that sanctity as a **kedushah expressed through kavod**. It is not identical to the consecration of an object for the *Mikdash*. It imposes a relationship of reverence and proper conduct.

Perhaps something similar helps us here. The Gemara can say **"וכי נר קדושה יש בה?"**—there is no inherent Mikdash-like sanctity in the Chanukah lamp—while we still say **"קודש הם"** in the sense that the lamps are set aside for a mitzvah and may not be used casually.

Then the explanations begin to come together. **Bizui mitzvah** means treating the lamp without the *kavod* appropriate to its purpose. **Huktzah lemitzvaso** means it has been set aside for that purpose. And **heker** means its special purpose remains recognizable.

I am not claiming that these are all the same *din*. That is what we have to clarify. But this concept of *kedushas kavod* may help us understand the language.

Now take out the **Baal HaMaor**. He draws a *nafka minah* that can show us whether these explanations truly differ.

## Tashmish Shel Mitzvah

Suppose a person wants to use the light to perform another **mitzvah**—not to count money, but to learn Torah or engage in a religious act.

If the entire *issur* is **bizui mitzvah**, perhaps using the light for Torah and another mitzvah does not degrade the Chanukah candles in the same way as ordinary personal use. But if we compare the Chanukah lights to the Menorah in the *Mikdash*, perhaps even using them for another mitzvah is considered an improper use of those lights.

That is the type of *chiluk* raised in the discussion of the **Baal HaMaor**. The *taam* of the *issur* has consequences. We have to read the text inside and see the limits of his conclusion.

And then we will have to compare the **Biur Halachah**, because not all *tashmishei mitzvah* are necessarily treated alike. An occasional act and a regular, deliberate use may differ. That is the next *sugya*.

## Baal HaMaor: Does the Reason Change the Halachah?

Listen carefully to the **Baal HaMaor**. If our Chanukah candles are modeled on the Menorah in the *Mikdash*, one might argue that even using their light for **a mitzvah** remains improper. We do not repurpose the Menorah for our own work, even holy work.

But if the *issur* is primarily **bizui mitzvah**, perhaps there is no disgrace in using the illumination for Torah. That may be a permitted *tashmish shel mitzvah*. The sources and their practical conclusions require careful comparison.

This is why I brought the different *taamim*. It isn't a collection of nice explanations. It is the basis of the *halachic* discussion.

You are pointing me to the Mishnah Berurah and Biur Halachah. Of course we have to learn them! I prepared the *mareh mekomos*. There are many sources on the sheet. We're learning this as *bnei Torah*: not just repeating the bottom line, but understanding the entire structure.

## Does the Prohibition Apply to Everyone?

Let me suggest another important *nafka minah*, discussed by later *poskim*. Is the *issur* equally directed at the person who lit the Chanukah candles and at someone else?

If the concern is **heker**—that a person should clearly recognize that the lighting was done for the mitzvah—perhaps one could distinguish the person fulfilling the mitzvah from an outsider.

But if it is **bizui mitzvah** or **huktzah lemitzvaso**, one might expect the restriction to apply regardless of who uses the light. A mitzvah doesn't become less important because somebody else is the one making use of it.

That is the kind of distinction attributed here to a discussion of the **Beis HaLevi**. We must confirm the printed *teshuvah* before treating it as an actual *psak*.

Now I want to understand a very practical expression in the **Biur Halachah**: **תשמיש של מצוה בדרך עראי**—an occasional mitzvah-related use.

What exactly is **arai**, incidental or temporary use? Do we mean an act that takes very little time? Or something done in passing without turning the lights into our regular source of illumination?

The distinction is important. It may connect to what we said earlier about **hana'ah de'memeila**. If a person incidentally sees something in the candlelight, that is different from sitting down beside the Menorah in order to read by its light for an extended time.

I am not saying every interpretation of *arai* is correct. We have to determine what the *Biur Halachah* intended. But the word itself needs explanation.

We have the *sugya* of **bizui mitzvah** on one side and the *sugya* of **mishtamesh le'orah** on the other. The overlap between them, and the differences between them, determine the permitted forms of use.

Now let us see concrete examples from the *poskim*.

## Learning Hilchos Chanukah by the Chanukah Lights

The **Shaarei Teshuvah** discusses uses of the Chanukah lights connected with the mitzvah itself. Imagine a person has just lit his Menorah and a *shaylah* arises. He opens a Mishnah Berurah—or one of the many collections of practical *pesakim* we have today—and wants to check **Hilchos Chanukah** by the light of the candles.

Is that ordinary personal use? Or is it connected with the mitzvah of the candles themselves?

You might argue that learning **the halachos of the mitzvah you are performing** is different from reading something unrelated. But if one deliberately brings a book over solely to use the light, perhaps the concern of *mishtamesh le'orah* remains. This is exactly the kind of distinction that requires care.

And what about reading **Haneiros Halalu** from a *siddur*? Some people dim the other lights to bring out the glow of the Menorah. If they are reading the words from a page, is the shamash really providing enough light by itself? Often the Chanukah candles are clearly contributing.

Here again, the question is whether using the light to recite something integral or related to the mitzvah differs from using it for ordinary needs. I have seen *teshuvos* on this subject, including one quoted under the name **Siach Yitzchak**. We should verify the exact *siman* and conditions.

## Scented Candles

Now I want to present a case that sounds unusual, but the *poskim* discuss such things: **scented Chanukah candles**.

Suppose the candles release a pleasant fragrance while they burn. Is the person benefiting from the mitzvah? Does the Gemara prohibit all forms of *hana'ah*, or specifically **using the light**?

If the prohibition is **אסור להשתמש לאורה**, the fragrance is not itself the light. Perhaps the scent is incidental and permitted. But if we treat the candle itself as designated for its mitzvah in a broader sense, does that change the question?

A ruling is attributed in the *shiur* to **Rav Chaim Kanievsky** permitting such candles. I want you to understand the *sevara*, not simply repeat a yes or no. Which of our *taamim* is relevant? What type of *hana'ah* is Chazal's *issur* describing?

## Candles That Produce Music

There is another curious example: candles or devices that produce **music** when used. Is hearing music from something connected with the Chanukah lights an impermissible benefit, or merely a side effect?

Again, what exactly did Chazal forbid? **Using the illumination**? Deliberately using the whole candle or lamp as an instrument? Or all incidental benefits from the mitzvah?

We must know which case is being discussed and how the product functions. I am not presenting a universal ruling for every device. I want us to learn the *lomdus*.

And now there is a third example—one that I can remember from my own childhood. What about going near the Chanukah candles to **warm your hands**?

## Warming Your Hands by the Menorah

As a child, I remember coming home in the winter with freezing hands. There was the Menorah burning, and sometimes a child would go over to warm his hands near the flames.

Is that **אסור להשתמש לאורה**?

You might immediately say, *orah* means **light**, not heat. We are not reading or looking at anything. We are enjoying the **warmth** of the flames. But don't dismiss the question so quickly. If the broader concept is using the mitzvah for one's personal benefit, perhaps deliberately approaching it for heat would also be a problem.

There is an important difference between pleasant warmth reaching you while you sit nearby and **going to the Menorah for the purpose of warming yourself**. The second case is a deliberate act of use.

The *shiur* brings a ruling attributed to **Rav Chaim Kanievsky**, from a collection of his answers, that one should not deliberately approach the Menorah to warm one's hands. The printed source and its exact formulation require checking, but the point is that one should not assume only visual light can constitute a problematic use.

I enjoy the *shakla vetarya*. When I raise a case, I want you to argue with me! Tell me why you think it is permitted or prohibited. Then open the *sefarim* and see what the *poskim* actually say. That is the *geshmak* in a *sugya*.

## Photography of the Menorah

Now let us return to those pictures of people lighting Chanukah candles. A *teshuvah* of **Shevet HaLevi** raises a concern about photography, while a more lenient view is attributed to **Rav Chaim Kanievsky**.

What is the *machlokes*? The camera may use some light from the Chanukah candles. Is the photographer thereby being **mishtamesh le'orah**? Or is this merely an incidental contribution to the image? Perhaps the photograph is actually about publicizing the mitzvah. Alternatively, is turning the Menorah into a photographic prop inappropriate?

Different types of cameras and lighting conditions might affect the facts. So we cannot decide the entire question from a single general statement. The point is that the *poskim* look at the nature of the use and the meaning of the prohibition.

Do you see how the same *yesodos* continue to appear? **Direct use versus incidental benefit; light versus other benefits; personal convenience versus mitzvah-related purpose; bizui mitzvah versus heker.**

And I want to use these distinctions to examine two more everyday cases: **eating near the Menorah** and **using the light because one is afraid of the dark**.

## Eating Near the Chanukah Candles

Suppose the Chanukah candles are on a table and people want to eat there. They may be eating a *seudah*, or perhaps simply enjoying *latkes* and *sufganiyos* together. Is this considered using the light of the Menorah?

First we should separate another question: **where does a person light Chanukah candles when attending a wedding or staying away from home?** I discussed complicated cases of a *chosson* and *kallah* who spend much of Chanukah night in a hall or hotel. The issue of **makom hadlakah**, where their home is considered to be for the mitzvah, is a separate *sugya*. Don't confuse a question about **where to light** with whether people may **eat by the light**.

Now back to the table.

If the main concern is **bizui mitzvah**, does eating a *seudah shel mitzvah* differ from eating an ordinary meal? If the concern is **using the light**, then even a mitzvah meal could involve deliberate use of the Menorah's illumination. Some *Acharonim* discuss whether *tashmish shel mitzvah* is permitted, and under what conditions.

The **Mishnah Berurah** (Orach Chaim 673, particularly the early *se'ifim ketanim*) discusses benefiting from the lights from a distance or indirectly, as opposed to deliberately using them. If people are sitting far from the Menorah and the room is already illuminated otherwise, that is not necessarily the same as bringing food to the Menorah to eat by its light.

This is a practical lesson: where there is enough other lighting, and you are not turning the Menorah into your source of illumination, the question looks very different. But the exact ruling must be checked for the circumstances.

## Why Did the Gemara Choose Counting Money?

Now go back to our first *kashya*. **"אסור להרצות מעות כנגד נר חנוכה."** Why did the Gemara use the example of examining coins?

The **Ramban** in *Milchamos* understands the case as demonstrating how far the *issur* goes: **even such a small, seemingly occasional use** is prohibited. If this is forbidden, more substantial uses are certainly problematic.

But there is another perspective attributed to the **Shibbolei HaLeket**: perhaps counting money is singled out because doing that specifically constitutes **bizui mitzvah**. Examining money can feel particularly inappropriate in the presence of mitzvah lights; using the illumination for a respectable or mitzvah-related task might be different.

Do you hear the two *mahalchim*? One focuses on the nature of **using** the flame, even in a small way. The other focuses on the **kind of act** and whether it degrades the mitzvah.

## Being Afraid of the Dark

One more question: a person is afraid of darkness and feels more secure because the Chanukah lights are burning. Has he used the lights impermissibly?

A lenient answer is attributed here to **Rav Chaim Kanievsky**, apparently treating that comfort as **hana'ah de'memeila**, an incidental benefit. The exact source needs to be checked.

There is also an older *halachic* discussion about sleeping alone in a house and the dangers mentioned by Chazal, including references in **Mishnah Berurah, Orach Chaim 239**. We must not mix that separate topic into the *issur* of Chanukah lights without understanding the contexts.

But the underlying point remains: **not every benefit a person experiences because a lamp is burning is necessarily the deliberate act of using it**. That distinction has accompanied us throughout the *shiur*.

Now we are ready for a major practical question: **if there are electric lights in the room, do we still need a shamash?**

## Do Electric Lights Replace the Shamash?

This is one of the most practical questions in *Hilchos Chanukah*. **If the room already has electric lighting, must we still light a shamash?**

We hear different approaches attributed to contemporary *poskim*, including **Rav Chaim Kanievsky** and **Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach**. But the question is really rooted in the reasons for the *shamash*.

The **Baal HaMaor** explains the additional lamp in terms of **heker**: a person who sees the Chanukah candles should not assume **"לצרכו הדליקה"**, that they were lit for the householder's personal needs. If the shamash is part of the **maaseh hadlakah** that identifies the special purpose of the candles, perhaps the ordinary electric lights don't fulfill its role in precisely the same way.

But the **Rambam**, in *Hilchos Megillah VaChanukah* 4:8, writes that a person who places the Chanukah lamp indoors must have **"נר אחר להשתמש לאורו"**—another lamp from which to use light. And if there is a fire in the room, under the circumstances he specifies, he may not need a further lamp.

Do you hear the difference? In that formulation, the additional light provides **permitted illumination for ordinary use**. If so, why shouldn't the electric lights already turned on in the room serve that purpose?

There are nuances, and we must learn the exact circumstances. But now the *machlokes* makes sense. Is the shamash primarily an **identifying part of the Menorah lighting**, or is it primarily **the alternate light by which we may perform ordinary tasks**?

I raised this with a great *posek* as well, because in a large household, when many people light Chanukah candles, many additional shamashim can create a practical problem. It becomes crowded and hot. Can one ordinary room light, or a single extra source of light, serve instead? You cannot answer without knowing which *taam* is governing the requirement.

## What If the Shamash Burns Out?

Let's take it one step further. Must the shamash last as long as all the Chanukah lights? If it burns out while the Chanukah candles are still burning, do we have to relight it?

If we need it for permitted **tashmish**, perhaps we still need another source of light available throughout the relevant time. If its role is part of the original *hadlakah* and *heker*, perhaps the analysis is different.

A *talmid* raised that *ha'arah*, and I liked it very much. We have to examine it. The same question comes up if a person lights in more than one place because of **chashad**, suspicion. Does each set need its own shamash? Does the presence of ordinary lighting change the answer?

These aren't merely technicalities. They show what it means to understand the structure of the *takkanah*.

Remember the *yesod*: **a shamash does not automatically solve every question about using the light of the mitzvah**. We must first know what job it is meant to perform.

## Where Do You Stand When Using the Shamash?

Suppose you need to see the time and there is a shamash burning near the Menorah. Should you deliberately move closer to the **shamash** so that you are using its light rather than the Chanukah lights?

If the shamash is the specific **permitted lamp**, perhaps that is important. But if it exists primarily to establish **heker**, the answer may be different. The **Shaarei Teshuvah**, in the *siman* concerning the use of Chanukah lights (Orach Chaim 673), discusses turning toward the shamash for permitted illumination. We need the precise text before declaring a practical rule.

Now I want to turn to another *sugya*, which may sound unrelated but is actually tied to these same explanations.

## The Custom of Refraining from Melachah

The Shulchan Aruch says (Orach Chaim 670:1): **"ונוהגות הנשים שלא לעשות מלאכה בעוד שהנרות דולקות"**—women have the custom not to do *melachah* while the Chanukah candles are burning. The Shulchan Aruch also records that one should not be lenient about that established custom.

What is the reason for the *minhag*? What exactly is prohibited? And why is it especially associated with women?

One explanation associates the custom with the prohibition of **using the light**. If the candles are for the mitzvah, we shouldn't turn to ordinary work while they burn, lest the work become associated with their illumination.

Another explanation, discussed in the **Levush**, emphasizes being **present with the mitzvah**. When the candles are lit, one should not immediately run off to ordinary occupations and lose the meaning of the moment. The act of refraining from work is itself a kind of *heker* that we are occupied with the mitzvah.

But there is a very different explanation from the **Taz** and **Magen Avraham**. The custom is connected with giving women a kind of **Yom Tov**, comparable in certain respects to the customary cessation from work on **Rosh Chodesh**. The Magen Avraham refers to the particular role women played in the Chanukah miracle.

Do you hear how different these *taamim* are? If the custom is an extension of **אסור להשתמש לאורה**, it may apply mainly to activities that make use of the candles' light. But if it is a kind of **Yom Tov restriction**, perhaps even work elsewhere in the house is included.

And then there is the question of **duration**. Do we mean only the first half hour of the candles' burning? Is there a custom extending further into the evening? Some communities and texts record longer customs. We must distinguish the basic *halachah* from local *minhagim*.

The fact that the *Shulchan Aruch* speaks specifically of women should not lead us to careless jokes or assumptions. We want to understand the **sources** and how the practice developed.

Now let us see what work the *poskim* actually discuss. Sewing? Laundry? Cooking? Work in another room? All of these depend on the underlying explanation.

## How Far Does the Prohibition of Melachah Extend?

We have three basic possibilities about the custom of refraining from *melachah* during Chanukah lighting.

If the *minhag* is concerned with **using the Chanukah lights for ordinary work**, then sewing beside the Menorah, where you depend on its light, might be the classic problem. But what about someone working in a kitchen illuminated by electricity, without using the Menorah at all? That would be a different case.

If the practice is meant to show **respect for the act of hadlakah**, the central concern may be that the family should pause and attend to the mitzvah rather than run straight into unrelated tasks.

And if the practice gives that time the character of a **minor Yom Tov**, then we have a different *sugya*: which forms of *melachah* are treated as prohibited, and how does this custom compare with **Rosh Chodesh** or **Chol HaMoed**?

The **Ben Ish Chai**, **Kaf HaChaim**, **Chazon Ovadia**, and other *Acharonim* discuss the scope of the custom. There are views involving sewing and laundering, and questions about whether modern laundering—simply operating a machine—has the same status as older forms of labor. The speaker also mentions differing customs in Yerushalayim and a discussion attributed to **Dayan Fisher**. These precise practical rulings require confirmation in their respective sefarim before being applied.

There were even customs in some places about refraining from a broad range of work for more than the first half hour, or for much longer periods of Chanukah. The *Mishnah Berurah* and earlier works discuss the limits of such customs. We mustn't pretend all of those practices carry the same authority or that they apply identically to every community.

*Rabosai*, you see how it comes back to the beginning. **Why do we refrain from work?** Until you understand that, you cannot understand **which** work, **how long**, and **to whom** the custom applies.

## Is Chanukah a Yom Tov?

And now one final *ha'arah*. Chazal say that the eight days of Chanukah were established **"בהלל והודאה"**—for praise and thanksgiving (Shabbos 21b). But does that mean that Chanukah is a **Yom Tov** in the same sense as Pesach or Sukkos?

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 670:1–2) says that the days are forbidden for *hesped* and fasting, but in general **melachah is permitted**. It also discusses whether additional festive meals have the status of **seudot mitzvah**. The Rema mentions a view that there is some mitzvah in increasing meals because of the dedication of the Mizbeach, and that singing *zemiros* and praises can give a meal the character of a *seudah shel mitzvah*.

So Chanukah is a time of **Hallel and Hoda'ah**, yet it isn't simply another of the *shalosh regalim*. Still, the *Acharonim* discuss whether the days have their own distinct *kedushas hayom* or *din Yom Tov*.

I heard a *vort* associated with the Brisker *derech* on the Rambam's formulation that **these days are called Chanukah**. The suggestion is that the mitzvos of Chanukah are not only acts we perform; there is significance in **the days themselves**. But the exact *Brisker* attribution and formulation need to be checked.

Even the familiar play on the name **Chanukah—חנו כ"ה**, they rested on the twenty-fifth, is used by *sefarim* to explore the status of the day. It is a *remez*, not a stand-alone *halachic proof*.

So I am leaving you with the question: **What kind of Yom Tov is Chanukah?** The answer helps explain the *minhag* of refraining from work, the character of festive meals, and the dignity we owe to the Chanukah lights.

Our central lesson remains the same: learn the **taam**, understand the **geder**, and then the *halachos* will become clearer.

*Rabosai*, a **gut Chanukah** and a *gut Yom Tov*.