Chanukas HaBayis

Based on Rabbi Joshua Flug

II. Introduction

This outline will discuss the minhag to hold a chanukas habayis, dedication upon building a new home, present various sources for this minhag and as well as whether this minhag applies in chutz la'aretz.

III. Sources for the minhag

• a. Chanukas HaBayis as an exemption from war
  • i. The Torah states that one of the exemptions from war is one who built a house ולא חנכו. (Devarim 20,5)
  • ii. Rashi (1040-1105) writes that ולא חנכו means that one didn't live in the house.
  • iii. R. David Kimchi (Radak, 1160-1235) suggests that the root חנך means to begin with activities such as eating and as such ולא חנכו means that one hasn't eaten there yet. He then notes that from here developed the minhag to hold a seudah the first time one eats in a new home. (Sefer haShorashim)
• b. Shabbos Bereishis as a form of Chanukas HaBayis
  • i. R. Achai Gaon (8th century) writes that the concept of HaShem resting on the seventh day can be understood by comparing it to someone who builds a house and when he is finished, he holds a הילולא (Sheiltos 1).
  • ii. Netziv (1816-1893) notes that some have the girsa כלילא. Netziv writes that it is the same idea. (HaEmek haShailah 1,2)
  • iii. R. Malkiel Tannenbaum (1847-1910) suggests that the two girsaos reflect two different kinds of celebrations. There is one celebration that takes place when the work is complete. This is indicated by the word הילולא. There is another celebration that takes place when one moves in and uses the house. This is indicated by the word כלילא. (Divei Malchiel 1,3)
• c. Building for the Purpose of Avodas HaShem
  • i. The Zohar (Parsha Tazria) states that one who builds a home, it should be built for the purpose of Avodas HaShem.
  • ii. R. Yeshaya Horowitz (Shelah, c. 1565-1630) writes that we see from the fact that Yehuda was sent ahead to build a beis medrash in Goshen that when one builds a home, one should see to it that there is a space that is dedicated to limud HaTorah. (Shnei Luchos haBris Parshas Vayigash)
    • 1. R. Mordechai Winkler (1845-1932), in discussing whether it is permissible to hold a chanukas habayis during the Nine Days, suggests that if one builds one's home with the Shelah's directive in mind, then the chanukas habayis can be viewed as a siyyum of a dvar mitzvah. However, he notes that since it can be held at a different time, one should not hold it during the Nine Days. (Levushei Mordechai Orach Chaim 1,101)

IV. Is there a mitzvah to perform a chanukas habayis?

• a. Tashbetz Katan (170) quotes Maharam of Rutenburg (c. 1215-1293) writes that on Chanukah, there is an obligation of hallel and hoda'ah, not seudah, and the chanukas habayis factor (of Chanukah) would only make it a seudas reshus.
• b. While Maharam's comments are addressing commemorating the chanukas Beis HaMikdash by the Chashmonaim years after it happened, R. Shlomo Luria (Maharshal, 1510-1573) quotes Maharam as saying that in general, the dedication of a home is only a seudas hareshus, especially when it is filled with frivolity and indulgences. However, if a G-d-fearing individual wants to establish his home as a place of Torah and mitzvos and holds a seudah for that purpose which includes divrei Torah, then it is a seudas mitzvah. (Yam shel Shlomo Bava Kama 7,37)
  • i. R. Yair Bachrach (1639-1702) also writes that if there are divrei Torah or talmidei chachamim at such an event, it is a considered a seudas mitzvah. However, he notes that if one takes this approach, one is really watering down the concept of seudas mitzvah because every public seudah is inevitably going to have a talmid chacham present. (Chavas Yair 70)
  • ii. R. Yaakov Chaim Sofer (1870-1939) offers a possible answer to R. Bachrach's question. He notes that Maharshal's comments are consistent with the Zohar. There is something unique about dedicating one's home to avodas HaShem. As such, one can argue that a proper chanukas habayis is not just a generic seudas mitzvah because there are divrei Torah, but there is something specific about having a seudas to dedicate one's home to avodas HaShem.
• c. An insight about chanukas habayis emerges from a discussion about whether one can hold one on Chol haMoed:
  • i. The Gemara (Moed Katan 9a) derives the concept of אין מערבין שמחה בשמחה from the fact that Shlomo HaMelech didn't hold the Chanukas Beis HaMikdash on Yom Tov.
  • ii. R. Meir Arik (1855-1926) notes that this seems to indicate that one cannot hold a chanukas habayis for the home on chol hamoed. However, he notes that one can distinguish between the Beis HaMikdash and one's home. (Minchas Patim O.C. 546,4) In other words, the concept of Chanukas Beis HaMikdash is a bona fide concept and therefore אין מערבין שמחה בשמחה applies. However, chanukas habayis of the home is a devar reshus (or minhag) and therefore, אין מערבין שמחה בשמחה does not apply.

V. Does Chanukas HaBayis apply in Chutz La'Aretz?

• a. The Yerushalmi states that if one builds a house in chutz la'aretz, it doesn't exempt him from war. (Sotah 5,4)
  • i. Rambam (1138-1204) codifies this as a matter of halacha. (Hilchos Melachim 7,14)
• b. Acharonim discuss this Yerushalmi in the context of holding a chanukas habayis:
  • i. R. Yissocher Ber Eilenburg (Be'er Sheva 70, c. 1550-1623) discusses whether a chanukas habayis would be considered a seudas mitzvah. He notes that if it would be, it would only be in Eretz Yisrael, not in chutz la'aretz, based on the Yerushalmi.
  • ii. R. Avraham Gombiner (Magen Avraham, c. 1633-1683) presents this issue as a dispute between Maharshal and Be'er Sheva. (O.C. 565, 5) Apparently, Magen Avraham felt that since Maharshal did not mention any distinction between Eretz Yisrael and chutz la'aretz, there must not be a distinction.
  • iii. R. David Frankel (c. 1704-1762) writes that the Yerushalmi would seem to indicate that a seudas chanukas habayis is a seudas reshus. However, he notes that the Bavli has a different derasha for the verse that serves as the source that chutz la'aretz is excluded. (Shiuri Korban)
  • iv. R. Avraham Borenstein (Avnei Naizer Y.D. 389, 1838-1910) makes the following points:
    • 1. He asks: why isn't the fact that the house in chutz la'aretz is going to be used for Shabbos and Yom Tov meals significant enough to warrant returning from war?
    • 2. He initially answers that in Eretz Yisrael, there is an inherent mitzvah to live in the house. In chutz la'aretz, the house might be used for Shabbos and Yom Tov meals, but that is just a hechsher mitzvah.
    • 3. He then notes that according to many rishonim, the house is not just a hechsher for one's Yom Tov meal but part of the meal itself. This is why they hold that if one's house is on fire, one can put out the fire on Yom Tov. It is actual ochel nefesh.
    • 4. However, the Yerushalmi is of the opinion that eating in one's home on Yom Tov is not considered ochel nefesh. This is why the Yerushalmi writes that one is only exempt from war in chutz la'aretz.
    • 5. Rama follows the opinion that having a home for a Yom Tov meal is ochel nefesh and as such, there is a mitzvah to be מחנך one's home for Shabbos and Yom Tov meals.
  • v. R. Malkiel Tannenbaum notes that Sheiltos doesn't seem to distinguish between Eretz Yisrael and chutz la'aretz. He further notes that there is no proof from the Yerushalmi. If the Jews have sovereignty over Eretz Yisrael and someone builds a house in chutz la'aretz, there is no mitzvah to be מחנך it. It is preferable to rent out that house and remain in Eretz Yisrael. However, now that we are in galus, there is a mitzvah according to the Sheiltos to be מחנך one's home.
    • 1. R. Baruch HaLevi Epstein (1860-1941) presents a similar rejection of the proof from the Yerushalmi but cannot imagine that there would be a mitzvah to build a house in chutz la'aretz and therefore, there can't be a mitzvah to dedicate it. (Torah Temimah Devarim 20, note 22)
• c. R. Moshe Sofer (1762-1839) writes that in principle, it should be prohibited to build homes in chutz la'aretz. However, our needs in galus require us to build in chutz la'aretz and if we are מחנך the house with Torah and tefillah, then it can be a positive thing. (Y.D. 138)