The Unique Status of Hiddur Mitzvah in Neros

Chanukah
Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb Rabbi, Congregation Shomrei Emunah, Baltimore, MD

I. position is that even though you are lighting for every mem-
The well known Talmudic presentation of neros Chanukah ber of the house, only the ba’al ha-bayyis lights the candles,
(Shabbos 21b) describes a tri-level stratification of the mitz- while the Ramo clearly rules that – as is the common prac-
vah. The basic requirement is “ner ish u-beiso,” one candle tice in Ashkenazic homes – each family member lights their
per house, per night. The mehadrin option is for every fam- own neros.
ily member to light one candle each night. And finally, most II.
optimally – mehadrin min ha-mehadrin – is to light the
While the machlokes between Tosafos and the Rambam
number of candles corresponding to the night of the holi-
seems to revolve around whether or not it must be visibly
day. More specifically, following the opinion of Beis Hillel
clear to a passerby what night of the holiday it is3, it is un-
we light one candle on the first night, two the second, and
clear what issue underlies the debate between the Rambam
so on, until we light eight candles on the final night of the
and Ramo – both of whom deny the need for “heker shel
holiday.
minyan ha-yamim”. 4
The exact relationship between the final two levels, mehad-
R. Velvel Soloveitchik suggests that, in fact, the positions of
rin and mehadrin min ha-mehadrin, is unclear and is subject
both the Rambam and Ramo, respectively, are consistent
to a dispute among the rishonim.
with their general views about the larger question of the role
Tosafos ad loc., s.v. u-mehadrin maintains that the final level of hiddur mitzvah. 5
of adding a candle each night is in lieu of the previous fulfill- He bases his analysis on a seminal teshuvah of the Beis ha-
ment of everyone lighting for themselves. In other words,
Levi, II #47, who explains – in the context of a discussion
according to Tosafos the preferred method is for one per-
about removing additional pieces of the foreskin after the
son per home to light an additional candle each successive
essential bris milah is already complete – that the Rambam
night.
and Ramo (along with the Tur) argue about the relation-
The Rambam, Hilchos Chanukah 4:1 argues on this under- ship between the actual mitzvah and hiddur mitzvah. The
standing and rules that mehadrin min ha-mehadrin builds Rambam understands that for hiddur mitzvah to be mean-
on and includes the prior method of lighting. Namely, we ingful it must be performed simultaneously with the actual
increase the number of candles lit each night in addition to mitzvah whereas the Ramo allows for the hiddur mitzvah
lighting for every member of the household. to be accomplished even somewhat apart from the perfor-
The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 671:2 follows the posi- mance of the mitzvah itself.
6

tion of Tosafos while the Ramo – at first glance – appears to
follow the Rambam’s understanding1. However, a number
of achronim have correctly pointed out that a closer read-
ing of the Rambam and Ramo reveals that despite some
overlap, they appear to disagree about the critical question
of who should light the neros Chanukah.2 The Rambam’s
R. Velvel explains that this same issue is at the heart of the
debate regarding neros Chanukah. The Rambam rules that
the head of the house must light all of the candles – both
those which fulfill the essential mitzvah and those for hid-
dur mitzvah – because by so doing he integrates the ikkar
mitzvah with the hiddur. The Ramo, on the other hand, al-

Chanuka 5768 | www.yutorah.org | Page 1

lows every member of the home to light independently – in this instance.9 But this seems very problematic, as the
consistent with his general position which allows for hiddur Pri Meggadim, Mishbetzos Zahav, 676:2 notes, because the
mitzvah to be accomplished even independent from the ac- basic mitzvah is already complete and we generally do not
tual mitzvah requirement. make berachos on the fulfillment of hiddur mitzvah. But
III. the explanation may be that hiddur of neros Chanukah is
unique in that it is incorporated into the mitzvah itself and
The implicit assumption made by R. Velvel is that the hid- therefore one can make a beracha on its fulfillment.10
dur mitzvah of Chanukah candles is, essentially, the same
kiyyum – rooted in “zeh keli v’anvehu” – as the hiddur mitz- Another example of this phenomenon may be the debate
vah of mitzvos generally, and one can therefore explain po- about a case where one lacks sufficient candles to fulfill the
sitions about neros Chanukah based on positions held re- mitzvah optimally and only after having already lit does the
person come into possession of additional candles. The
garding other mitzvos. 7
question arises whether, when lighting the additional can-
However, this assumption seems questionable in light of a dles (to correctly correspond to the night of the holiday),
number of anomalous characteristics of the hiddur mitzvah another berachah should be recited. The Magen Avraham,
of neros Chanukah. 651:25, Elyah Rabba, 672:7, Birkei Yosef, 671:13, and oth-
First, the very fact that there is a specifically prescribed ers debate this question.
method of performing hiddur – as is outlined by the Ge- In truth, the very possibility – let alone, final ruling – that
mara Shabbos – is a departure from the more subjective cri- one should make a berachah is startling considering that the
teria which typically governs the implementation of hiddur basic mitzvah has no doubt already been fulfilled (see the
mitzvah. Second, this is the only context where we find the Machatzis ha-Shekel, 676). However, if hiddur is actually a
additional level “mehadrin min ha-mehadrin.” And finally, component of the mitzvah and not additional to it then it
the preferred performance of the mitzvah clearly requires an is understandable why one would even make a berachah in
outlay of money which far exceeds the general rule of “hid- this situation.11
dur mitzvah ad shlish” (Bava Kama 9b).
A further echo of this understanding is implied by the ruling
In light of these discrepancies, perhaps we can suggest that of R. Meir Simcha, Ohr Sameach, Hilchos Chanukah, 4:12,
the hiddur of neros Chanukah is unique and is in fact quite regarding a person who cannot afford neros Chanukah. In
distinct from the general notion of hiddur mitzvah. More such a case, the halacha requires a person to do whatever
specifically, it appears that whereas hiddur mitzvah is gen- it takes – including selling the shirt off his back – to raise
erally something additional which remains apart from the enough money to fulfill the mitzvah.12 Unlike the Chemed
essential mitzvah, the hiddur of neros Chanukah is different Moshe (cited approvingly by the Mishnah Berurah, 651:3)
in that integrates into the very fabric of the mitzvah. 8 who limits this to raising sufficient funds for the basic obli-
IV. gation of one candle per night, the Ohr Sameach suggests
that one must even go to such lengths in order to fulfill the
There are a number halachos where this unique feature of
demands of “mehadrin min ha-mehadrin.” The most likely
hiddur mitzvah seems to be evident.
explanation for such a surprising and extreme position is
For example, the poskim discuss whether one can still make that the hiddur mitzvah is, ultimately, inseparable from the
a berachah if the first candle has already been lit but one basic mitzvah and is therefore equally demanding.
has not yet kindled the remaining candles. Teshuvos Rebbi
V.
Akiva Eger, Mahadura Tinyana, #13, Teshuvos Kesav Sofer,
Orach Chayyim, #135, and R. Yosef Engel, Gilyonei Ha- The mitzvah of neros Chanukah thus emerges as the source
Shas, Shabbos, 23a all rule that one may recite the berachah of a new and fascinating halachic construct. Far from be-

Chanuka 5768 | www.yutorah.org | Page 2

ing just another example of the general principle of zeh
keli v’anvehu, our ambitious and maximal fulfillment of
the mitzvah is rooted in the unique integration of the ikkar
mitzvah and the hiddur mitzvah. 13
Notes
1. See the Taz ad loc. # 1 and the Sedei Chemed, Ma’areches Chanukah, #9 who
note the oddity of the Shulchan Aruch – and subsequent Sefardic tradition – fol-
lowing Tosafos while the Ramo and Ashkenzic tradition follow the Rambam.
2. Teshuvos Galya Maseches, #6 and Aruch ha-Shulchan, Orach Chayim
671:15.
3. See the Biur Ha-Gra, Orach Chayim s.v. v’yesih omrim and the Beis Ha-Levi
Al Ha-Torah, Derashah L’Chanukah, s.v. b’Gemara chad amar. See as well, R.
Daniel Feldman, Binah B’Seforim, I #5. For alternative explanations, see R. Asher
Weiss, Minchas Asher al Maseches Shabbos, #32 and R. Avroham Farbstein, Ke-
neses Avroham al Inayanei Mitzvos u-Moadim, #7.
4. A number of different explanations are suggested. See for example, the discus-
sions of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik in Kovetz Mesorah, IV p. 9, R. Yosef Lieber-
man, Mishnas Yosef al Inyanei Orach Chayim, II #36, and R. Yitzchok Sorotz-
kin, Gevuras Yitzchok al Inyanaei Chanukah, #10.
5. Chiddushei Maran Riz ha-Levi, Hilchos Chanukah 4:1.
6. See R. Moshe Shternbuch’s important discussion in Moadim u-Zemanim, II
#123 on the parameters of how independent the hiddur can be even according
to the position of the Ramo. See, however, R. J. D. Bleich, Sefer Zichron Ha-Rav
pp. 4-11.
7. R. Velvel seems to have been preceded in this position by Rabbenu Chanan-
el – see the commentary of Rabbenu Chananel to Shabbos, ad loc. and Bava
Kama 9b.
8. Support for this idea can be found in the comments of the Ra’avan, I #35 cited
by R.Lieberman, op cit. and the Sefer Ha-Ittur, Hilchos Tztzis, III no. 2 cited by
R. Shmuel ha-Levi Wozsner, Teshuvos Shevet ha-Levi, III #84. This may also
explain the striking presentation of the Shulchan Aruch, ad loc. who only cites
the maximal fulfillment of “mehadrin min ha-mehadrin” without ever mention-
ing that me’ikkar ha-din the obligation can be fulfilled with one candle per night.
See the comments of R. Elazar Menachem Shach, Avi Ezri, Hilchos Chanukah
who is very bothered by this omission of the Shulchan Aruch.
9. This position is based on comments of the Beis Yosef, Orach Chayyim 676,
10. See also Teshuvos Shevet ha-Levi, loc cit. and R. Nosson Gestetner, Tes-
huvos Le’horos Nosson, II #53 who discuss variations of this case and rule simi-
larly because of the unique role that hiddur mitzvah plays in neros Chanukah.
11. R. Betzalel Zolti, Mishnas Ya’avetz, Orach Chayyim, # 66.
12. See Rambam, ad loc. and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayyim 671:1. For an
explanation of this demanding requirement, see the Maggid Mishneh, ad loc.,
Teshuvos Maharam Schick, Orach Chayyim, #331, and Teshuvos Avnei Nezer,
Orach Chayyim, #501.
13. For further development of this idea and its application to other halachos of
neros Chanukah, see my Ateres Yaakov, #5.

Chanuka 5768 | www.yutorah.org | Page 3

Chanuka 5768 | www.yutorah.org | Page 4