Santa Monica, CA – Rabbi Says Electric Menorah ‘Not the Real Deal’


    Santa Monica, CA – For many years, Chabad of Santa Monica was the sole keeper of the Chanukah menorah on the Third Street Promenade.

    Hundreds would gather as the group lit its oil-fueled, traditional menorah in the middle of the promenade’s Center Court each night of the holiday.

    But two years ago, Bayside District Corp., the public/private group that manages and promotes Downtown, decided to make some changes to Chanukah on the promenade. It ended Chabad’s monopoly of the event, deciding to instead invite a different temple from the area to host the menorah lighting each night. It also replaced Chabad’s oil-fueled menorah with an electric one.

    “The thinking was to create an opportunity for different congregations throughout the Westside to help the community celebrate Chanukah,” said Kathleen Rawson, Bayside’s CEO.

    The change meant that Chabad, an Orthodox temple that considers electric menorahs invalid, had to ask permission to hold a second promenade menorah lighting. It now holds its own lighting each night on the promenade just north of Center Court.

    “It’s caused a little bit of heartache, but you deal with what you have,” Chabad of Santa Monica Rabbi Eli Levitansky said of the transition.

    There’s no rivalry between the two camps, both sides insist, only different views of a Jewish tradition.

    Bayside’s electric menorah is “symbolic, but it’s not the real deal,” Levitansky said. “There are many, many places worldwide that use electric; our idea is that we want to portray the real thing. If we’re doing it, we’d like to do it right.”

    Rabbi Jeff Marx of the Santa Monica Synagogue, whose temple will host the Center Court lighting on Sunday, said using a menorah with light bulbs instead of flames is “nothing too terrible.”

    However a menorah is lit, he said, “the result is still the same: we get to re-tell the story of Chanukah.”

    While the rift over the lighting ceremony has caused some friction, Rawson said she believes a suitable resolution has been reached.

    “I feel like we’ve worked well together and we have, really, a good solution,” she said. “We simply made room for (Chabad) to put their own [menorah lighting] on. Change is hard, but it certainly was not insurmountable.”

    At Sunday’s lighting, Marx also will be leading his second attempt at a Chanukah-related world record. The goal is to gather a group on the promenade and collectively spin more than 603 dreidels simultaneously.

    “I read an article a couple years ago about it,” Marx explained. “I said to myself, ‘We could definitely get enough people together here in Santa Monica to do it.'”

    Marx’s first attempt last Chanukah to snatch the record from the University of Maryland Hillel managed only about 300 concurrently spinning dreidels.

    Though he won’t take part in Marx’s menorah lighting ceremony, Rabbi Isaac Levitansky of Chabad of Santa Monica, said he hopes to take part in the dreidel spinning effort.
    “One of the things that we do on Chanukah is we publicize the miracle of Chanukah, and this is something that publicizes the miracle of Chanukah, he said. “It’s a good thing,”

    Follow VosIzNeias For Breaking News Updates


    1. you are right.if u r doing,might as well do it right. by using bulbs we r sending out a message that its kosher to light it that way.using real fire sends out the real message.

    2. “Bayside’s electric menorah is “symbolic, but it’s not the real deal,” Levitansky said.”
      There is no mitzva to light the menorah in a public park. Home- yes, shul- yes, park?- no such mitzva. Sounds symbolic, but not the real deal.

      • And yet the berachah is recited at these public menorah lightings (when oil is used, not electric bulbs), so evidently there are at least some posekim who consider it a fulfillment of the actual mitzvah – much like lighting the menorah in shul, even though no one lives there.

      • If you look closely at the Michaber, Kol Bo and Rivash you’ll see that pirsumi nisa is an ikar in Mitzvas Chanukah which by the way has been lost since we started taking the menorah inside rather than light it as it was originally established namely al pesach beiso mibachutz which is the very reason we light menorah in the beis hakneses with a brocho although it’s only a minhag and we don’t find such a minhag in the time of chazal? This question is answered by the Aruch Hashulchan that KOL IKAR HAHADLOKO HEVI MISHUM PIRSUMI NISA that since in today’s days we can no longer fulfill the mitzvah k’tikuna to light al pesach beiso mibachutz, thereby accomplishing Pirsumi nisa like in the time of the gemara therefore in Beis Hak. is the IKAR pirsumi nisa.

        Now look at the loshon of the livush why the Beis Hak. was chosen to accomplish pirsumi nisa: “Hu mokom sherabim misasfim sham b’ofan rogil v’kavua”. Unfortunately, in our times of Achshor Dara, where most yidden do not come to the beis hakneses especially the “eino boki” for whom the Rivash says we instituted this tikkun of lighting in shul, Street Lightings accomplish “the real deal” and certainly pirsumi nisa as the Rebbe requested.

        • In continuation to what I wrote in comment #6 I must add that the Rebbe instructed that we announce at these lightings that one is not yotzi his chova but must light at home as well and the Rebbe in the note brings the Rama (siman 671 s’if 7) that one is not yotzi with the neiros in the beis hakneses.

        • Another point to add to comment #6 is that many ask why this new minhag to light in the street was not done in previous generations, besides what was written that achsor dara and the “aino boki” no longer assembles in the beis hakneses, today, where we live in medinos shel chessed, mah shein kein in previous times, who allow us to light publicly, the Rebbe took the opportunity to accomplish something that we couldn’t do previously because our hands were tied as in many tikunim we find bdivrei yimei yisrael.

    3. Actually a battery powered menora with clear incandescent bulbs would be permitted by the Achiezer (R’ Chaim Ozer Grodzensky) and probably others. Being that all the fuel is present at the time of lighting and a clear incandescent bulb has the din of aish. Reciting a Beracha for a park etc. lighting is a separate shaila.

    4. none of achronim or rishonim said that one can make a brocho outside! While levush and others explained the reasoning of beis haknesses to be pirsummey nissa, yet they have not been metaken lighting at the streets. That is simply not the “real thing” as far as mitzvo is concerned! One cannot extrapolate that from that takana that one may may make a brocho at the streets (even at restaurants and other public domains is not mentioned anywhere in halacha).
      The only accomplismhent and it is a great accomplishment, is pirsummey nissa! So electric bulbs do also pisrussmey nisso to a certain extent.

      • see the Haskama of Hagaon Hatzadik HR’Sh M’shash Zatzal to the sefer Imrei Eliyahu in which he paskens that since amongst those public lightings of Chabad there are yidden who don’t even have their own menorah therefore all the reasons given for the minhag to light menorah in the beis hakneses by Maran Habeis Yosef and to make a brocho namely because of Orchim and also because of Pirsumei Nisa, also apply to the public lightings in the street and he mentions that when he comes to these lightings he also makes a brocho and beforehand he mentions that anyone who does not have Chanukiah in his home should have in mind to be Yotzi with the brocho.

        See also sefer Az Nidbiru (volume 5 siman 75 a vol. 11 siman 32 & 34) and sefer Yabia Omer (vol. 7 Orach C. siman 57 os 6)

    5. Firstly, let’s not confuse the question if a brocho may be recited with etzem public lighting. Countless gedolim and Poskim have participated and support this inyan. The ones I brought were only to show that one can EVEN make a BROCHO at such lightings but the etzem inyan is supported by Gedolei Yisroel. And we have Maaseh Rav (which is the highest level of psak din) from the countless Rabbonim and Roshei Yeshiva who themselves participate in these Chabad Street Lightings. (R’ Mordechai Eliyahu spoke and watched the public lightings worldwide on the famous Chanukah Live Satellite in 1991)
      Btw. the whole idea of Kiruv was only advocated by ONLY ONE Rebbe out of hundreds of rabbonim, roshai yeshivos, admorim poskim and mora’ai ho’ra’ah.

    6. You bring Yabia Omer 7/56/6/. Ironically while he defends the idea of reciting a brachain public lightings in a public hall;
      a) he brings many/most halachik decisors oppose it: וכן כתב בשו”ת שבט הלוי ח”ד (סימן סה), שלדעתו אין לברך בכיו”ב, …עכת”ד. וכ”כ בספר אז נדברו חלק ו (סי’ עה) בשם ידידנו הדגול הגאון רבי שלמה זלמן אוירבך שליט”א, שאין לברך,… וכ”כ בשו”ת מנחת יצחק ח”ו (סי’ סה אות ג). ע”ש. וכ”כ ידידנו הדגול הגרא”י ולדינברג שליט”א בשו”ת ציץ אליעזר חט”ו (סימן ל). ע”ש.
      you have: Rav Wosner, Rav Aurbach, Dayan WEiss, Tzitz Elizer. And Rav Yossef was NOT talking about lighting in the STREET; there is no precedent in halacha tomake a brocho for the street (only a Bayit).

      • So what’s your problem sir that we don’t follow “Rav Wosner, Rav Aurbach, Dayan WEiss, Tzitz Elizer”? Do you follow every deiah in your hanhogo yom yomis in Judaism? Firstly, we don’t need any other opinion as we have Rabon Shel Yisroel, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Umi yovo achar hamelech. Secondly, if you’re a misnagid and your derech Hatorah has become biased because of your hisnagdus to derech haBaal Shemtov, shem zich privately but don’t boast about it publicly especially that you wasting your time from limud Hatorah and others “Ki Dvar Hashem Bozo, bifrat when I showed you we have al mi lismoch.

      • I think it’s prudent to point out that the Minchas Yitzchok and the Tzitz Eliezer were not addressing the din of Pirsumi Nisa for a public gathering where the assembled would most likely not light at home which is what we are discussing. In addition, the Minchas Y. was certainly not addressing the campaign of Chabad with regard to public lightings as the mivtza of Chabad began in 5740 whereas the date of the Tshuva of the M”Y is 5733. Hence his reference to the ”public lightings” and expression ”ein ruach chachomim nocha mehem” was certainly not directed at the Chabad lightings but seemingly to other unworthy assemblies. Worthy of note that R’ Mordechai Eliyahu participated along with many other gedolim in these lightings

    7. 1) start working on being polite to people you don’t know,
      2) are all lubavitchers that rude?
      3) actually “dvar hashem bazah” goes to those who make pronouncements against halacha,
      4) There was a comment # 2 who claimed that there was no mitzva in lighting outside in the which some commented that the making of a bracha proves the issue.
      5) then some commented that there is no source for the brocho outside.
      6) then someone quoted a source, while doing that he ommitted that the same source claims that the poskim mentioned earlier disagree with the validity for a bracha. So for those who claim that they disagree with the legitimacy of a brcha have more legs to stand on than those who criticize them. Healso cited ROY as a source, when he didn’t speak about lighting outside.
      7) Please provide a asource where the Lubavitcher Rebbe Ztk”l writes that one recites a bracha when one lights outside!
      8) and when deriding other jews, you should shem zach that you deride your fellow jews with such other sinat yisrael! Thatis contrary to Baal Shemtov

      • Nowhere on this thread was it mentioned that the Rebbe said to make a brocho. The main issue began over someone who I assume is a frum ben torah who cutely seemed to have aligned himself with the reform those who like to make trouble for the shluchim by saying that the outdoor lighting is not the real deal. I therefore responded to this ‘cute’ accusation with sources. I have a hunch that this guy is interested more in discrediting than ‘Torah Ani Tzorich’ and therefore used a little Gaon Yaakov to put him in his place. As to the brocho I never professed that the Rebbe instructed Chabad to make a brocho as indeed this issue has been debated in Lubavitch for years in the Heoros Hatmimi. etc in many venues (contrary to those who always look to be dan shelo lchaf zechus as if Lubavitch kenen nisht lernen and are not concerned about halacha ch’v) but it seems that the consensus of Lubavitcher Rabbonim who can learn as well as their gedolim (v’yesh lomar by far) is that we should say a brocho although the Rebbe never instructed it but also never was moche which yesh lomar shma mina d’nicha lei especially bpumbi on the Chanukah Live satellite.

    8. Please! Look at the teshuvas and LEARN them and then voice a learned opinion:

      TE clearly reasons that we cannot *add*on what was nitaken for Beit Hakenesses (which many refrained from making a brocho on). That has got nothing to do with whether the assembled would or would not light at home. His opinion is that it is a bracha levatalah. His reasoning is valid on 5770 as on 5740.

      the same about MY: Whether or not his additional comment of (eyn ruach chachamim” ) is valid here, his *main* point that we are not to be mechadesh a bracha on ur own is valid now as in 5733.

      and yes, i’m not talking about the gathering and about thepirssumey nissa and thanking Hashem for the miracles that he brought us then and brings us now; they both would probably say that “ruach chachamim nocha” from gatherings like these where it brings jews to be proud of their yiddishkeyt and to thank Hashem, and to light the menorah at their home and to do more mitzvot etc. The only contention that i’m making is that most gedoyley haposskim (those who were accepted by a greater number of jews as posskim) do not hold that the bracha is legitimate.

    9. With regards to Rav Mordechay Eliyahu it is worthwhile to note that while he participated in some of the gatherings (and again, i’m not g-d forbid decrying the gatherings per se; they are a great kiddush Hashem and pirsum haness and a feat of achdut yisrael; i’m discussing the recital of the bracha at these gatherings); I don’tthink that he himself made a bracha outside of the kotel hamaaravi which is a Beit Haknesses and therefore deserves a bracha for being a beit haknesset.

    10. 15 responded to 14 who said that Rav Aurbach, Wosner, TE, Dayan Weiss all said that a brocho not be recited. 15 stated “miyavoy acharhamelech”, implying that the Lr did say thatone should recite a Bracha. and The whole post was filled with arrogance of a lubavitcher loving the fight and to tell the snag what he learnt from his mashpiim.

      Now, you also cite the lubavitch rabbonim who “canlearn as wellastheir gedolim”. WADrto these Rabbis they are not yet of the caliber as Rav Aurbach, QWosner, Dayan Weiss, TE! They are not yet accepted as posskim for all klal yisroel as opposed to the aforementioned posskim who are takenin consideration by all segments of klal yisroe.

      While, you may claim that the LR was not moche it means ppproval; I’m not a fan of such a position. there are a lot of things done by Lubavitchers that I would not say that the Rebbe approved of it unless he himself so stated (as for example, might be that most brachas on the satelitte was indoor.) In addition, when he wanted, hemade sure to request openly that a brocho be made. like by the jewish girls hadlakat ner shabbat. His aquiescence in this case, tells much more that his miedloh michah.

      • I’m glad to see you changed your tone from your original comments which seemed to be deregatory about these public lightings, which were instituted by none other than the Lubavitcher Rebbe himself and therefore I considered your comments quite disrespectful as you are entitled to choose your rav or gedolim but anan neilech abasrei which is why I said Umi yovo achar Hamelech which I see in your later comment you put words in my mouth I didn’t say namely that that was referring to making a brocho, no the Rebbe didn’t discuss the brocho.
        I see you also cofuse Maran The Beis Yosef w RAY?? I also see that you dimissed the Psak of Hagaon Harav M’Shash Z’tzl who CLEARLY is matir a brocho. See also sefer Nesivos Bisdei Hashlichus from Dayan Raskin siman 13 where he is choker the entire issue and brings many rayos to support this inyan from shas uposkim bringing the following interesting points: The Mechaber says to make a brocho in the beis hakneses despite the fact that he holds Ain mivorchin al haminhag 2. The whole pshat of Mivorchim al haminhag is not that first there was a minhag atik then later they were misaken a brocho but the lheifach those gedolei hadoros who introduced the minhag they were m’asher the brocho anything that was similar to the geder of mitzva she’ll Torah or drabanan #3. V’hu haikar, the Rivash needed the Taam of Mivorchin Al Haminhag only for Beis Haneses davka because the entire kahal lights in their homes but in the street where many don’t light bichlal there it is a CHOVA to light there for pirsum hanes although they are not yotzi chovosom but on that chiyuv hahadloko in the street SHAPIR MIVORCHINAN (brings the Kol Bo) and reiterates what I said already that the reason this minhag was not seen in prev generations because until now kol hachored lidvar Hashem would come to the Beis Hakneses incl the Aino Boki and for those who didn’t we never had the reshus or ability to light in the street as we have now.

        • Let me add, that even if you might argue that it’s still a safek brocho l’vatala, I will tell you for certain that it’s not because of the value of simply educating (chinuch) the secular Jews as to how to make the brochos on the menorah when they come home to light. Leave these things up to the experts namely Chabad who work with these poor neshomos 24/7 and know what chinuch is when he sees it. Rest assured, a constant contact with Rabbanim is kept continuously by all shluchim to ensure we are michaven l’amitoso shel Torah.

          • For those that follow Posskim that are accepted by klal yisroel there is no safek. They follow that there is no room for a brocho here.

            If it is for chinuch, then they should state that now they are going to be help those who do not yet know how to make the blessing. But they do so in a manner that this is a bracha for a mitzva; it is actually a bad form of chinuch (chinuch hafchi) where the person might thing that this is actually a way to perform a brocho by lighting at the street!

          • In addition: you claim to be experts in the opinion of the Rav’s Shulchan Aruch. He rules that itis assur to teach brachot for adults if it’s not done beshat chiyuv (fulfilling an obligation), so when bracha levatala is involved, there isno permission to do so for adults by “teaching” them, if it is not done in the framework of a kiyum chiyuv that requires a bracha.

            שולחן ערוך הרב אורח חיים הלכות ברכת הפירות סימן רטו סעיף ב

            אפילו שלא בזמנן ואע”פ שהם לבטלה בשעת הלימוד אע”פ שאסור לגדול המתלמד

        • I am glad that you acknolwedgethat you could not find the LR ZTK”L stating that a brocho be recited for the lighting at the street.

          I am not impressed with your presentation of Dayan Raskin’s arguments:

          1) Akasha on Beis Yossef (and a terutz on *this* kushya) does not permit to create new minhagim wrt to brachot at a location where there was no initial minhag insitituted by those who could make this takana andminhag to recite a bracha over it.

          2)therefore the second point only reinforces the need for the brocho to be instituted at the initial hanhaga of the minhag; ie. since there was no institution to light outside there is no legitimacy to recite a bracha over this!

          3) This is incredible! Where does the Kolboh *anywhere* state that there was a “chova”to light in the street? Here is what the kolboh writes :
          ספר כלבו סימן מד

          ונהגו כל המקומות להדליק נר חנוכה בבית הכנסת להוציא מי שאינו בקי ושאינו זריז בזאת גם כי הוא הדור המצוה ופרסום הנס וזכר למקדש ויש מקומות שאין חוששין סמוך לפתח אלא לפני ההיכל,
          Where is there is any suggestion that there is a chova tolight in the street?
          Is this how lubavitchers learn??

      • Let me also add that Hagaon R. M. Ashkenazi Shlita Av Beis Din of Kfar Chabad is midayek from the inyan that the Achronim are choker how are the Bnei Bayis allowed to make a brocho on lighting ner chanukah when they were yotzu covosom from the Baal Habayis and therefore some say it’s indeed an issue and the bnei bayis must be michaven not to be yotzi with the Baal Habayis. But R’ Ashkenazi says from the loshon of the Alter Rebbe ”Dafilu bner Chanukah amru Ish Uveiso V’hamehadrin sham heinu mishum pirsumi nisa” (ad kan lishono) is mashma that he holds that for the sake of Pirsumi Nisa KISHELIATZMO one is PERMITTED TO MAKE A BROCHO EVEN IF THERE IS NO CHIYUV HADLAKA PLACED UPON HIM.

        Now do you understand why Lubavitch follows our own Rabbanim as there may be a huge difference resulting from a diyuk in Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch which is not necessarily always the focus of these Rabba nim you mentioned and Rav Ashkenazi is no soft player to tzu opmachen…

        I also see that you commented on Ki Dvar Hashem Bazah as restricted only to one who is migaleh panim batorah shelo kahalacha, you failed to be mi-ayan in the Gemara closely (Sanhedrin 99 sof amud alef) where you’ll see it refers to bittul Torah as I said.

        • I fail to see the diyuk and the relevance. Whatever one can be medayek from the language of the kuntress achron of the SA HaRav , *Chazal*placed a directive for each person to be mehader and make a bracha (becauseof pirssumey nissa). But it must follow guidelines, for instance, . no one will say that one can light five times a night (after he was yotzey one time) and make the brocho over and over because of “pirsumey nisso”. So, if Chazal directed to make a bracha only at home or at most beit hakenesses; then no amount of “pirssumey nisso” willalow for a brocho to be recited at the street.

          In short, now I understand, how lubavitchers just invent things out of nowhere; and invent a pseudo diyuk in SA HaRav to legitimze something that do for other reasons when thereis no real source for it. I can assure you, that you go to chacham Ovadyah and say that this diyuk is a source for your practice, he willlaugh at you! It is high time thatlubavitchers learn basics so that they will realize how foolish they look for providing such “sources”!

          • Going back to the Rebbe, no matter how many times I said this, you fail to acknowledge that I never said anything about the Rebbe permitting or assering a bracha. However I did say though that it is a pretty strong raya from the fact that the Rebbe knew for over 10 years that his Chassidim are making a bracha and was not moche especially when he joined the live satellite – v’yesh lomar – shma mina d’nicha lei. I did though acknowledge that this has always been discussed and debated in Lubavitch contrary to your disgusting judgemental attitude like all your misnagdishe friends, rehashing all the sources etc. and there are those who are mistapek if a bracha should be said but most I think are comfortable saying a bracha because of the above reason from the Rebbe. A Freilichen Chanukah.

      • Rabon Shel Yisroel is the Rebbe as referred to by all Lubavitchers as the Nosi of our generation as Ain Dor She-ein bo K’Moshe see also Tanya sof perek beis with regard to those who are mordim btalmidei chachomim of the generation.

    11. The Beis Yosef writes clearly to make a bracha and the Rama agrees. Some poskim ask on the Beis Yosef that since he holds in regards to hallel Rosh Chodesh not to make a bracha, since its a minhag, so how come here you are allowed. It’s such an halacha pshita which started first in Provence France with a Bracha and became accepted throughout the whole world, and almost no one raised any disagreement (besides the Shivlei Leket), and all the poskim took pirsuma nisa as a sufficient reason for a bracha. Because of this alone it seems that those who say a bracha are on solid footing.

      (the Kol Bo was brought for his reason of the aino boki which lends much support to the aino boki whom no longer is found in shul but on the street)

      It looks from your comments that your kavana in this whole thread is to mock the Rebbe’s chassidim and that only you know how to learn. It doesn’t look like you have any interesting points to counter the reasons to be matir a bracha other than citing the major contemporary poskim. Amongst the Lubavitcher Rabbonim who have paskened that a bracha is in order is Rosh Kolel Harav Heller Shlita.

      • 1) The Brocho in Beis Hakensset coincides with initial takana tomake atpessach BAYIT; street is NOT BAYIT. There is no source for a brocho there.

        2) It looks from your behavious that you have no interest in accepting someone who differs with you, without resorting to name calling as you did since the outset of this discussion.
        3) Put in your head: *your* position is the motzi mechaveroy! There is no source for a brocho in the street! So someone who differs iwth Rav MEshash or Rav Heller on these matters should not be derided as you have not succeeded to offeer any logical source for your position. citingf that the *svoro* that exists about the takana of chzaalapplies to area where they were not massaken is NOT called proof! and not calle
        d a presentation for your case.

        • ACCEPTING? I never came to you with any complaints, YOU have decided to be the halacha police and condemn a whole adas hachassidim when they have THEIR Rabbanim they follow. Isn’t that the way of Torah that each person, kehilla should follow THEIR Rabbanim?

    12. The Rosh Kolel in Lubavitch & Rav on the CH Beis D. R’ Heller says (Heoros Ubiurim) that based on the reasons given by the Beis Yosef (aside from zecher lmikdash) for lighting in the Beis H. namely because there is more pirsuma nisa and to be motzi the aino boki, these reasons are not limited to beis hak. davka but was only chosen because that’s where the rabim is found but equally applies to wherever the tzibur congregates as the ikar is the pirsum “BARABIM” and to be motzi the eino boki and the takana of the Rebbe “hein hein divrei haKolbo”.

      Rav Heller also brings the Ritva (Shabbos 23a) “V’nahagu l’hadlik bibatei knesiyos kdei laasos pirumi nisa b’makom harabim” and Rav Heller writes: “Umivuar b’hadya d’ikar takanas hahadlaka hi bimkom harabim upashut shebizmanim haheim makom harabim haragil haya b’beis hakneses ulam ikar takanas hahadlaka hu l’pirsumi nisa bimkom harabim, v’einah shayeches l’beis hakneses yoseir mikal makom tziburi”.

      Rav Heller adds that based on Shilti Giborim & Hisorirus Hatshuva that there is pirsumi nisa even amongst only goyim one can even light barabim amongst only goyim with a bracha.

      • While Rav Helleris entitled to his opinion, he still is far from convincing!

        While BBeys Yossef and Ritva state that the idea behind theselightings is the tomake pirsum haness barabim, yet the other halachos of the lighting were NOT changed! And so, the place of lighting that was insitituted by Chazal, namely: PESSACH BAYISS OR another makom in the BAYIT! So, while chazal wanted to make pirsum larabim, theyinstituted that should be at the door of a BAYIT!

        It also seems to be the pashtut: don’t you think that they had other places at the Shuk where there might have a larger number ofpeople and yet nothing was ever mentioned about it. Because Bayit was the nature of the instituion of the mitzva with a brocho.

        • If the takana of Beis Hakneses would be conditional on “the door of the bayit” they wouldn’t light by the Kosel HaMaaravi and as written in Az Nidbaru that the reason for the lighting at the Kossel is because they daven there bikvius therefore it’s pirsum hanes but no need for a bayis.

    13. I think I brought you enough that shows we have stirdy grounds to stand on. Now imagine if we were to take issue with you guys with regard to serious issues like shaving (6 lavin midoraisa!!) and many other questionable kulos that you guys rely on but judging others is not the inyan of Lubavitch, Ashreinu mah tov chelkeinu.

    14. Look in the mefarshim and the Rebbe’s sichos on the mishna in Avos Al todin es chavercha ad shetagia limkomo and Nifroin Min Haadam Midaato V’shelo Midaato that how we judge someone is often a set up to see how we should be judged Lemalah for similar circumstances.

      Of course nothing wrong with discussing halacha and pointing out areas that might need more zehirus but just be careful with your disparaging attitude & “judging” of other yidden.

    15. For more sources to be matir saying a bracha see Shu”T Mishne Sachir (Orach Chaim volume 2 siman 202) he brings a shaila where they forgot to light the menorah in the beis hakneses btzibur and later after davening by the shiur they wanted to light he paskened they could light with a bracha and brings the Rivash that the ikar takana was to add to pirsumi nissa more than we have in the house and then the Mishne Sachir concludes that there’s no difference between a beis hakneses and a beis hamidrash.

      See also Shu”T Beis Mordechai (siman 41) who is matir lighting at mesibos based on the Kol Bo that b’drech klal these mesibos include those who are not boki and they are yotzi with these hadlokos.

      See also Toras Hamoadim (siman 7 Os 15) and is matir the mesibos that occur in the ulamos and says b’derech pshara that it depends if they will daven marriv there because if so it’s like a beis hakneses and they can make a bracha on the lighting.


      The Yalkut Yosef (204) brings down that by public gatherings where they daven Mincha & Maariv, one may light the menorah there also.

      The Piskei Teshuva (671:15) writes that there are those that permit lighting with a bracha at big gatherings in the city, since you would certainly find people that have not lit yet, and there’s no greater mitzvah of pirsumei nisa than this.

    17. As to your concern (reflected in Shevet Halevi) that perhaps the entire minhag to light in the Beis Hakneses was only established because the BH has similarities to the Menorah in the mikdash and therefore it was for the sake of making a zecher l’mikdash so therefore how do we have the ability to make a new tikun (outside of the shul) that is missing this similarity see Sefer Chikrei Minhagim from Hagaon R’ Eliyahu Y. Gurary Shlita who says that since we find many of the Gedolei Harishonim and Poskim who bring this minhag (bracha in Beis Hakneses) bistam because of pirsumei nisa and other reasons without the hadgasha that the beis hakneses is considered a mikdash m’at etc. therefore one need not be concerned of a yachid and can rely on the gedolim who don’t bring it and adds that it’s also possible that the reason of mikdash m’at was only brought l’ravcha d’milsa.
      Rav Gurary concludes that nevertheless since there are those who are not matir (Tzitz, Shevet Halevi, R’ Aurbach, MY.) he recommends (k’dai) if possible l’chatchila to daven maariv at the lighting and to honor someone who did not yet (& wasn’t planning to) light because then one can easily rely on the deios hamatirim.


    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here