Can one fulfill the mitzvah of Chanukah candles with an electric Menorah?

 Answer:

The Talmud in Shabbat (21a) says that while there are certain types of oils and wicks that are not suitable for Shabbat candles since they do not burn nicely, they are suitable for neirot Chanukah. The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch quote this as halacha. Based on this, it might seem that any type of menorah is suitable for Chanukah, including an electric one. Perhaps you could argue that the light from an electric menorah could be even nicer than one of oil.

Rav Ovadia quotes two reasons that some poskim have for arguing that you could not fulfill the mitzvah with an electric menorah.

1.     שו׳׳ת בית יצחק says that you cannot fulfill the obligation on Chanukah with an electric or even a gas menorah because olive oil is the clearly preferred type of menorah, it is the מצוה מן המובחר.

2.      Moreover, since you use electric lights all year round, it would not be so recognizable that you are lighting for Chanukah and thus not be considered פירסומי ניסא. As such you could never light these types of menorot with a bracha.

Rav Ovadia questions the above points:

1.     He reasons that the words of the Rambam are that שמן זית מצוה מן המובחר, that an olive oil menorah is the best possible way to do this mitzvah, but that does not mean that other menorot are not valid?

2.     He also questions the point that we are so accustomed to electric lights today that it would not be recognizable. He says one could simply light the menorah in a different place than the indoor lighting is usually placed. Moreover, today everyone lights with an actual menorah which is clearly recognizable as special for Chanukah.

Rather, Rav Ovadia says there is another reason, the correct reason why one cannot fulfil his obligation by lighting an electric menorah. An electric menorah has no oil at all and no wick! The miracle of the oil of Chanukah occurred to the menorah in the Beit Hamikdash, which had oil that should only have been able to last one day and then miraculously lasted eight. So we have to do the mitzvah with something that at least hypothetically is the same. Electric Menorot do not have this, they can last forever, as long as the electricity is on. In short, our menorah has to be similar to the menorah from the Beit Hamikdash to fulfill the mitzvah with פירסומי ניסא. Rav Ovadia proceeds to quote over a dozen other poskim who concur with this halacha and reasoning.

One final argument that some poskim make is that you cannot say the words להדליק נר with an electric menorah; that is not lighting. Rav Ovadia argues with this point and says that lighting would be an appropriate language for electricity and in fact he says that on Shabbat, if one does not have regular candles or oil, you are permitted to fulfill the mitzvah of neirot Shabbat (not Chanukah) with electric lights.

Rav Ovadia concludes that while you are not fulfilling the mitzvah with an electric menorah, if you have no other oil or candles, you should light an electric menorah, but without a bracha.

(Summary based on שי׳׳ת יחוה דעת חלק ד׳ סימן לח׳)

Before performing Bedikat Chometz, is it required/ proper to place ten pieces of bread to be found while searching for the chometz?

Question: Before performing Bedikat Chometz, is it required/ proper to place ten pieces of bread to be found while searching for the chometz?

Introduction: There is a negative Torah prohibition to maintain chometz in your possession during the days of Pesach. The Torah also gives us a positive mitzvah called Bitul Chometz, to nullify in our heart and mind all of chometz that is in our possession. On a biblical level that is all that is necessary, just state that all of the chometz in our possession is no longer ours as it is like “the dust of the earth.” However, Chazal recognized that we might have large amounts of chometz and, therefore, we might not truly intend to make ownerless our chometz. For that reason they created the mitzvah of biur chometz, to actually burn whatever chometz that is in our possession on erev Pesach (obviously whatever chometz we sell is no longer deemed in our possession). Lastly, in order to burn the chometz, one must find it. Therefore, Chazal instituted the mitzvah of Bedikat Chometz, to search our homes and possessions for chometz.

When performing Bedikat Chometz, there is a common practice to place ten pieces of bread around the house to be found while searching for chometz. Is this a requirement? What is the basis for this practice? Are there any downsides to this practice?

Answer: The Ra’avad writes that this practice has no basis. The Orchot Chaim writes that while many people have this custom and explain that it is done to prevent a bracha l’vatala because you have cleaned your home so well that you may not find any chometz, nevertheless, we need not be concerned with that because when we make the bracha על ביעור חמץ our intention is that we will burn “whatever we happen to find.” The bracha is not ״על מציאת חמץ״, on the finding of the chometz, but rather it is on our search and the eventual burning of whatever we might find. These poskim support he notion of not maintaining this custom.

There are, however, poskim who defend this practice and say that if we make a bracha על ביעור on the search and eventual burning of chometz, how can we make that bracha if we are not certain that there will be chometz to burn. The Mahari Veil suggests an entirely different reason for this custom. He says we place the bread so that we do not forget to do the biblical mitzvah of bitul (nullifying the chometz in our heart and mind) the next day. In other words, it is not to prevent a possible bracha l’vatala since the bracha is going on the search and eventual burning, but he wants to be sure we don’t forget the biblical mitzvah of bitul which is done immediately after burning the chometz.

The Rema in his comments on Maran Shulchan Aruch writes, ונוהגים להניח פתית חמץ במקום שימצאם הבודק כדי שלא תהיה ברכתו לבטלה. ומיהו אם לא נתן לא עיכוב, שדעת כל אדם בשעת הברכה לבער אם נמצא.

Rema recognizes that this is a valid custom, but if one did not place the bread he may still recite the bracha. This is the basis for Ashkenazim to maintain this practice.

There are other poskim who suggest that this custom is not halachic in nature, but rather based on Kabbalistic sources and, therefore, it should be maintained since customs should be taken seriously as we have a tradition that מנהג ישראל תורה היא.

However, the sefer Brit Kehuna suggests we should NOT place the bread as there is a real possible downside.  He says that most people who keep this custom just search the house for these ten pieces of bread and do not bother to do the real requirement of searching the entire house for chometz. In other words, this well intentioned practice might lead many people to actually not performing the real mitzvah.

On the flipside there are other poskim who suggest that in our days where we clean our homes so thoroughly and it is so unlikely to find any chometz on the night before chometz, there is a real concern for bracha l’vatala if we do not find any chometz. For that reason, they suggest maintaining the custom.

Summary: Rav Ovadia concludes that this minhag certainly has a valid basis and should be maintained. He says that the concept of “ten” pieces of bread is of Kabbalistic origin (for the halachic considerations discussed it would suffice to place one piece of bread). Rav Ovadia adds a few important considerations:

1.     You need not place all ten pieces in different locations.

2.     Each piece should be less than a k’zayit so if it is not found there is no prohibition of having chometz in your possession.

3.     Each piece should be individually wrapped in paper so that crumbs are not left in the house.

4.     If you actually cannot find 1-2 of the pieces, you need not search for hours to find them, but you can rely on the bitul, nullification you are doing the next morning.

5.     It is important to search your entire home and not just search for these ten pieces of bread.

(Summary based on יחוה דעת חלק ה׳ סימן לא׳)

Can one fulfill the mitzvah of reading the Megillah by listening to the ba’al korei through an amplification system (microphone and speakers)?

Question: Can one fulfill the mitzvah of reading the Megillah by listening to the ba’al korei through an amplification system (microphone and speakers)?

Answer: This question does not relate to the people who are sitting close to the ba’al korei and would be able to hear his voice without the microphone for they are certainly fulfilling the mitzvah. Even if the microphone is allowing them to hear it better, they would still fulfill the mitzvah without question. The question here relates to those sitting to far to actually here the voice of the ba’al korei and need the microphone to hear him.

1.     The Minchat Elazar discusses hearing shofar on Rosh Hashanah and Megillah on Purim over a telephone. He says that for Shofar you are certainly not yotsei because this would be the equivalent to the Mishnah’s case (Rosh Hashanah 27b) of one who blows the shofar into a pit, if the listener hears the actual sound of the shofar, he fulfills the mitzvah of listening to the shofar. However, if he hears the echo of the shofar, he does not fulfill the mitzvah. Listening through a telephone would also not be effective to fulfill the mitzvah as it is not viewed as hearing the actual words of the reader. However, when it comes to Megillah, the Mishnah does not prohibit hearing that from the echo of a pit and hence he knows of no reason to invalidate an amplification system for the mitzvah of Megillah.

2.     Rav Yosef Engel states that the fact that one does not hear the actual sound produced by the shofar or the reader does not prevent one from fulfilling the mitzvah. After all, even without an amplification system, one only hears the vibration of matter in one's immediate area and not the original sound waves. Nevertheless, the problem with an amplification system is that one does not hear the sound in a natural manner. Hearing a sound through in an abnormal fashion may not be considered a halachically valid form of hearing.

3.     One can add that this is the Mishna's problem with hearing an echo. Although there is always an echo produced by any sound, the human ear cannot detect the echo unless there is a considerable delay (approximately 1/10 of a second) between the original sound and the echo. Thus, it is possible that the problem with hearing the echo of the shofar is that one does not hear the shofar in a natural manner.

4.     R.  Shlomo Z. Auerbach notes that there is a fundamental problem with fulfilling the mitzvah of shofar or Megillah through an amplification system because when one hears the sound coming out of the speaker, it is not the actual sound of the shofar or the reader. Rather, it is an analog or digital reproduction of the original sound.

Teshuvot Yerushat P'leitah  presents the same objection to fulfilling these mitzvot through an amplification system and suggests that the Mishna's problem of hearing the echo of the shofar is simply that one does not actually hear the shofar but rather a reproduced sound.

5.     R’ Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 2:108) argues that even if one were to consider the sound coming out of a speaker as a reproduction, it does not necessarily invalidate the sound because any sound that is heard is not the actual produced sound (similar to R. Engel's initial assertion). He posits that the problem with hearing the echo is that an echo is a weak sound. Sound produced through an amplification system is a strong sound and therefore not subject to the invalidity of the sound of the echo. Therefore, R. Feinstein rules that in principle one should not protest those who use an amplification system for the reading of the Megillah. [R. Feinstein presents other reasons why one should not accept this practice.]

6.     Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, also suggests that there is a difference between listening to a shofar through an amplification system and listening to the Megillah through an amplification system. Regarding the shofar, the mitzvah is actually to hear the sound of the shofar. Therefore, if the sound is tainted by an echo, one cannot fulfill the mitzvah. However, regarding the Megillah, the mitzvah is not to listen to the Megillah, but to read the Megillah. All of the listeners fulfill their mitzvah based on the principle of shomei'a k'oneh (the listener is like the responder). When one listens to the Megillah, it is as if he himself is reading the Megillah. According to R. Frank, a tainted sound does not prevent the shomei'a k'oneh principle from taking effect and therefore, one can fulfill the mitzvah of Megillah by listening through an amplification system.

7.     Rav Auerbach, notes that he discussed the matter with R. Avraham Y. Karelitz (Chazon Ish). Chazon Ish responded that if the listener hears the sound through an amplification system immediately after the sound is produced it is possible that he fulfills the mitzvah. R. Auerbach explains that accordingly, one must explain that the problem with the echo is that the sound is not heard immediately upon its production.

Summary: One would not fulfill the obligation of hearing the Megillah on Purim if he listens through an amplification system or over the radio. However, those sitting close to the ba’al korei and can hear him without the amplification system would fulfill their mitzvah.

Author’s note: While we did cite some poskim who are lenient, Rav Ovadia takes the strict approach and hence it would appear that Sefardim should not utilize a microphone to listen to Megillah.

(Summary based on יחוה דעת חלק ג׳ ס׳ נד)