Santa Monica, CA – For many years, Chabad of Santa Monica was the sole keeper of the Chanukah menorah on the Third Street Promenade.
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
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,”
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.
“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.
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.
#2 you are so right!!! However, i think the idea behind the chabad menoras is not pirsume nissa but rather pirsume mitzvah. in that case real oil need be used.
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.
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.
Can someone explain why lighting an electric menorah would not be the “real deal” yet it is forbidden to light it on shabbos?
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).
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 park.to 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
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.
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.
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.
Can someone please explain to me how anyone can refer to the rebbeh a”h as ‘raban shel yisroel’???
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
MORE SOURCES FOR THE HALACHA POLICE:
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.
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.