Ideal lighting or safe lighting? Rabbanit Debbie Zimmerman

On one foot:

This is an excellent question. The mitzvah of Chanukah candles is “neir ish u’beito,“ “a candle for a person and their household.”^[1] These candles are lit for “pirsumei nisa,” to publicize the miracle of Chanukah.^[2] The halakhic parameters of fulfilling the mitzvah balance these two elements – ideally, the chanukiya is lit in a place that connects the home to the outside world – the entrance or a window.

Even the earliest halakhic sources on Chanukah lighting state that the mitzvah is fulfilled differently depending on the circumstances. Early sources teach that one should light at the entrance to their  home, but those who live upstairs should light in the window, and in times of danger it’s sufficient to light inside the home where only the household can see.^[3]

This “danger” is generally understood to be political or religious persecution, nothing to do with fire safety.^[4] Indeed, the gemara indicates that passersby should expect candles lit outside during Chanukah and it’s their responsibility to take proper precautions.

General halakhic consensus is that it’s preferable to light outside, at the entrance to a home or, if the front door does not face the public domain and the courtyard is privately owned, at the entrance to the courtyard. The preference to light below ten tefakhim, however, is not definitive, and if there’s even a negligible difference in safety shouldn’t be observed.

As far as lighting at the entrance – every fire has risk, lighting indoors does as well. The Torah and halakha mandate that we remove hazards from our home and prohibit us from endangering ourselves to fulfill a mitzvah, with few exceptions.^[5] Therefore, when there is a legitimate safety concern one should not light at the entrance to the home and should find a safer location that is visible from the public or semi-public domain and clearly associated with the house.

If you choose to speak to your brother about this make sure to do so in a respectful manner, one that does not dismiss his halakhic considerations but rather presents your valid halakhic concerns as well as your personal anxiety. Halakhic disputes should always be discussed with mutual respect. This is especially important on Chanukah; the original mitzvah was one lighting per household, and it’s important to maintain the wholeness of the household.

Answer

There are two aspects to this question. The first is the Torah attitude towards danger. Are we permitted to put ourselves at risk in general? What about to perform a mitzvah – such as the mitzvah of Chanukah candles?
The second is specific to Chanukah: How integral is it to light the chanukiyah outside? Or within 10 handbreadths from the ground? How important is it to observe the mitzvah in the most ideal way?

L’chatkhila and b’dieved

A beraita in Shabbat states that the mitzvah of Chanukah lighting is to light outside the entrance to one’s home, someone who does not have a ground level entrance should light in the window.^[6] Rashi explains that they do so because they don’t have room in a courtyard.

The beraita concludes, “in times of danger, it’s enough to place it on one’s table.”^[7] This danger is generally understood as societal – either general danger to Jews or specific decrees by rulers.^[8]

This is one of many sources that teach us to observe a mitzvah in a less than ideal manner in times of danger. For example, the gemara in Sukka teaches that cedar beams less than four tefakhim (handbreadths) wide are kosher to use for sekhakh; Rabbi Meir prohibits larger beams, Rabbi Yehuda permits.^[9] As proof, Rabbi Yehuda relates that they used such beams as sekhakh over a porch in a time of danger, the sages counter that this is not conclusive as it was in a dangerous time.^[10]

Yaavetz explains that the Torah allows such beams but the sages prohibited them rabbinically, and in “she’at ha’dchak” “times of need” it’s permissible to fulfill a mitzvah in this way. As opposed to “she’at sakana,” which generally refers to societal dangers, often related to anti-Semitism, “she’at ha’dchak” refers to any time of great necessity. For example, when other options are unsafe or unavailable. Lack of a safe way to light at the entrance to a courtyard or home certainly qualifies.^[11]

The mitzvah of ma’akeh, a guardrail

Just living is dangerous, but any rational person understands that some situations are more dangerous than others and there are often steps we can take to reduce risk. Driving a car is dangerous. But the danger is minimized when we wear seatbelts, have airbags, drive only when alert, and obey the traffic laws. Once we’ve followed basic safety precautions the benefit outweighs the risk.

In addition to being good sense, safety measures are halakhically mandated. The Torah commands us to build a railing around the roof “do not put blood in your home.”^[12] The Talmudic sages prohibited a variety of actions based on the principle of taking caution, such as having a shaky ladder in the home.^[13]

Rambam teaches that “There is a commandment to remove every deadly hazard, to protect against it, and act with proper care as it says, ‘Be careful and take extra care with your life.’ And one who does not remove it and leaves hazards that are dangerous has voided a positive commandment and transgressed ‘do not put blood[guilt in your home].’”^[14] Shulchan Arukh copies his language.^[15]

There are several Torah commands along the lines of “v’nishmartem me’od l’nafshoteikhem…” “You must be exceedingly careful with your lives…”^[16] Within context these words do not seem to refer to physical safety concerns, rather to keeping God’s commandments not to put ourselves in danger from a spiritual perspective.

Avoiding physically dangerous situations is not listed in rabbinic counts of the six hundred thirteen Torah mitzvot either. Yet there’s widespread consensus that we are obligated to protect our bodies as well as our souls. Why?

Safety first

When discussing situations one is permitted to interrupt their amida prayer the beraita brings the story of a pious man who was praying on the side of the road and didn’t interrupt his prayers to return a local official’s greeting. The official waited for him to finish and admonished him, “Fool! Isn’t it written in your Torah, ‘Just be careful and care for your life,’ and ‘You must be exceedingly careful with your lives?!’ When I greeted you, why didn’t you greet me in return? If I had cut off your head with a sword, who is there to hold me culpable for your blood?!”

The pious man then uses a metaphor to explain his actions. Subsequent halakhic authorities debate whether what he did was prohibited, but ultimately the consensus is that if such behavior is risky, it’s also prohibited.^[17]

Why use a non-Jew to teach this halakha?

It’s possible that this is one of those cases where a Torah source is unnecessary, as the value of human life is not just the basis of our religion, it’s the basis of all existence. Derekh eretz kadma la’Torah – the way of the world came before the Torah. Before we can observe Torah, and fulfill our spiritual potential, we must first be decent human beings, and fulfill our human potential. At the very minimum that means staying alive. Just as there’s no specific mitzvah to eat and drink regularly – to actively keep ourselves alive – we shouldn’t need a specific mitzvah to tell us to avoid endangering ourselves.

In some cases, “piety” clouds judgment. People are so focused on the spiritual they forget the physical. The pious man in the beraita needed a non-Jew to remind him what he should already know. The Written and Oral Torahs consistently teach us that God values life and health and that mitzvot are meant to guide our lives – “v’chai bahem,” “that you will live by them” – not lead to our deaths.^[18] Some ideals are so great they’re worth dying over, but in general saving lives overrides mitzvah observance and we’re commanded to “choose life.”^[19]

We’re commanded to actively violate most mitzvot to save a life, even in cases where there’s doubt. As not fulfilling a positive mitzvah is not as serious as violating a prohibition it’s clear putting ourselves or others at genuine risk to perform a mitzvah is prohibited.^[20] Halakha clearly dictates that, in all but extreme cases, we must prioritize safety and future mitzvah observance over specific mitzvah observance that puts us at great risk.^[21]

Doesn’t the mitzvah protect us?

The Tosefta in Pesachim teaches that one is not required to put one’s hand into holes and cracks to search for chametz that fell inside because of the danger.^[22] The gemara questions, why is the beraita worried about danger? Don’t we believe that “shlukhei mitzvah einan nizokin,” “those on a mission to perform a mitzvah will not be harmed?” The gemara answers that this does not apply to cases when there’s a likelihood of danger.^[23]

There’s little in life that doesn’t involve risk, but it’s important to weigh the potential risk against the benefit. In most circumstances there’s minimal risk in lighting a chanukiyah. But there are some situations where one’s obligation to protect themselves and the prohibition against putting oneself in a dangerous situation means that one should light in a less ideal way, or refrain from certain customs.

Where to light?

The earliest halakhic sources that discuss Chanukah mention safety concerns. The beraita teaches: The mitzvah of the Chanukah light is to place it at the entrance to one’s home, outside. And if one lives upstairs, they should place it in a window close to the public domain. And in times of danger one can put it on their table and it’s enough.^[24]

There’s some discussion concerning what constitutes “public domain,” “upstairs,” and a “courtyard.”  What about someone whose front door opens to a semi-public area, such as a communal courtyard or the hallway of an apartment building? Should one light at the entrance to their home or at the entrance to the public domain? Or perhaps inside, near the entrance to the home?^[25] Or perhaps this is a case where they should light in the window?^[26] After all, the mitzvah is “neir ish u’beto” – a candle for a person and their household.

Many poskim rule that a chanukiya lit outside must be within a tefakh of the entrance to the courtyard or home to be kosher.^[27] It’s possible your brother wants to fulfill these opinions. However, there are others who teach that we no longer have such courtyards and so the chanukiya should be lit at the entrance to the home.^[28] There is also an opinion that once the custom to light indoors was established, it remains preferable, even if there is a possibility to light outside.^[29] Others cite a different sort of danger – theives – as reason to light inside.^[30]

This is only a smattering of the many opinions that discuss the ideal place to light. As danger includes risks beyond persecution and there are legitimate, albeit minority, opinions that maintain lighting indoors is preferable, if lighting outside carries a legitimate risk of danger or creates a hazard the mitzvah is to light inside the home.

A wind

Furthermore, halakhically, the mitzvah is only fulfilled if one lights candles that are likely to remain lit for thirty minutes after sunset. Therefore one may not light in a windy area where they are likely to be blown out. This would obviously also preclude a place an animal or child is likely to push them over, but when such an occurrence is unlikely it’s a kosher place to light and even if they are blown out or knocked over one has fulfilled the mitzvah.

Based on this halakha Rav Eliezer Melamed adds another reason one may choose to light indoors. The rabbis preferred lighting outdoors but never mandated one buy a glass box or erect something to do so. He explained that houses were closer together and protected from the wind when the mitzvah was instituted, but this is no longer the case.^[31] Lighting in a window fulfills the ideal of publicizing the miracle, if not the ideal of surrounding the house in mitzvot – with the mezuza on the right and the chanukiyah on the left.

Interestingly, according to this interpretation, if the entrance to the stairway where your brother is lighting does not have a mezuza this is not a hiddur. For example, Rabbeinu Yerucham indicates that one should not light at the entrance to a courtyard that is not obligated to have a mezuza.^[32]

Safety and Chanukah lighting

While all this is true, the sages also allowed for certain leniencies in the public domain on Chanukah. Since people would light Chanukah candles outside, passerby have a responsibility to look out for themselves. In a discussion about damages the gemara teaches that a shopkeeper who places a lit candle outside his stall in the market

The beraita states that if a camel laden with flax passes by a shop with a lit candle and caused a fire – if the candle was inside the camel owner is liable for the damages since the camel entered a private domain.^[33] If the candle is outside the storekeeper is liable for the damages, since the candle is a danger in the public domain. Rabbi Yehudah says if it was a Chanukah candle then the storekeeper is not liable.

Practical ramifications

Ravina uses this to prove Rabba’s opinion that it is a mitzvah to light within 10 tefakhim (handbreadths, about 80 cm.) from the ground, otherwise the camel owner could contend that the storekeeper should have lit the candle high enough it wouldn’t be a hazard.^[34] The gemara adds this may not be a proof, it’s also possible that one may light at any height (under 20 amot), and the rabbis did not want to make the mitzvah of lighting difficult because then people would be less inclined to light outside.

Rosh explains that lighting below ten tefakhim enhances pirsumei nisa, people would understand that the candle is not for people to use, but for the mitzvah.^[35] Tur and Shulchan Arukh rule that it’s preferable to light within 10 tefakhim from the ground, but when lighting outdoors one fulfills the mitzvah anywhere within 20 amot (cubits) from the ground, and indoors at any height.^[36] Rambam and Rif don’t mention the issue of 10 tefakhim, which makes it seem that they accept the gemara’s refutation. Meiri and Rava teach that the custom was to light above ten tefachim, possibly because they were lighting indoors.^[37]

What can we learn from this?

This halakha also gives us a valuable tool to evaluate how much risk is allowed when lighting Chanukah candles. The general rule is that someone is liable for damages in the public domain if they act negligently. Lighting fire in the public domain where loaded animals pass by is generally negligent, but on Chanukah, as Rashi explains, it’s not. At the same time, the passerby whose camel and flax spreads the fire is also not liable – no one pays damaged. It seems that both acted equally responsibly and negligently, each covers their own damages. It’s not clear if this law would applies to places passersby shouldn’t expect candles to be lit outdoors, such as today outside of Israel or a place people don’t normally light.

The discussion surrounding the height of the Chanukiyah is interesting because it also sheds light on another question – were the rabbinic parameters regarding the ideal way to light designed to be adjusted as times change? The parameter not to light higher than twenty amot has already changed since people are used to looking higher up. So now that people do not generally light candles, and certainly outdoors, is there still a value to lighting close to the ground? Or, if anything, should we light higher where more people can see?