The kedusha of peiros shvi’is is mechayev many different halachos pertaining to the way the peiros are to be consumed and treated. For example, the Gemara (Pesachim 52b) derives from the word “li’uchla”(Vayikra 25:6) that the fruits of shmittah must be consumed in a productive way, i.e through eating them or another intended use, and not “li’hefsed,” i.e. by destroying or consuming them in a manner through which no benefit is derived. This halacha inspires a relevant, timely sheilah, discussed in the poskim, regarding the use of olive oil with kedushas shvi’is to fulfill the mitzvah of neiros Chanukah. Is burning the oil for the mitzvah similar to burning olive oil for personal benefit, which is permitted as per the Torah’s instruction that shmittah fruit may be consumed “li’uchlah,” or is the burning of oil for Chanukah neiros, which the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 673:1) paskens are assur bi’hanaah, considered “li’hefsed” and assur?

The Ridvaz (Beis Ridvaz to 5:9) maintains that since it is forbidden to use the light of the Chanukah neiros for personal use, burning shmittah oil for mitzvas ner Chanukah would indeed be a violation of the halacha of “li’uchla, v’lo li’hefsed.” This is the opinion of Rav Meir Arik (Shu”t Imrei Yosher, siman 100), and Shu”t Sha’arei Deah (chelek 2, siman 9), as well.

However, the Shu”t Mahara”sh Engel (chelek 2, siman 4) paskens that shemen zayis of shmittah is muttar. He reasons that the fact that there is a fulfillment of the mitzvah through the hadlakah renders the consumption as productive and not a hefsed. The Shu”t Tzitz HaKodesh (siman 14, ois 3) concurs with the psak to permit shmittah oil, based on the same reasoning. Similarly, Rav Yechiel Michel Tikotinsky (Toras HaShmittah) quotes Rav Yeruchem Diskin (father of Rav Yehoshua Leib Diskin) as permitting the use of an esrog with kedushas shvi’is to fulfill the mitzvah of Arba Minim.  Although the Mishnah (Sukkah 35b) states that an esrog of terumah or maaser sheni should not be used li’chatchilah, because the handling of the esrog during netilas arba minim will cause damage to the esrog , Rav Yeruchem allows a shvi’is esrog to be used. His reasoning is that the fulfillment of the mitzvah of arba minim renders this usage as “li’uchlah,” a productive consumption. It would seem that in our scenario of olive oil as well, the mitzvah fulfillment should render the burning as productive and not an act of hefsed.

Even according to those that maintain that a kiyum mitzvah is not sufficient to consider the oil consumption as “li’uchlah,” as there is no personal, physical benefit derived, additional reasons to permit shvi’is olive oil are offered by the Shu”t Levushei Mordechai  (Orach Chaim, Mahadura 3, siman 53). Firstly, the opinion of the Rosh is that although it is forbidden to use the neiros Chanukah for personal benefit, a temporary personal use is permitted. Therefore, the burning of the oil has a potential personal benefit, and not a hefsed of peiros shvi’is. Secondly, since the Mechaber (Orach Chayim siman 672) allows benefit to be derived from neiros Chanukah after they have been burning for the half-hour shiur, burning olive oil for the mitzvah may facilitate personal gain, and is not a hefsed of the oil. The second reason is seemingly difficult: the first half hour remains a burning of hefsed, as it is forbidden to derive benefit, so why is the hadlakah during the first half-hour permitted because of the extra time that it burns after the shiur?

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shu”t Minchas Shlomo siman 42) permits the use of shvi’is olive oil, offering an original understanding of why neiros Chanukah are not called a hefsed. Just like oil used to advertise for a business is not a hefsed of the oil, but rather a permissible, productive use, burning the shemen to “advertise” the nes Hashem performed for us- Pirsumei Nisa– is a valid usage form of shmittah oil. Additionally, Rav Shlomo Zalman introduces the klal of “Mitzvos Lav Li’henos Nitnu,” to our discussion. The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 28a) permits a mitzvah to be performed with an object that is assur bi’hanaah because “Mitzvos were not given for personal pleasure,” but rather as a necessary, mandatory part of Avodas Hashem. If so, how can the mitzvah fulfillment of ner Chanuka  be considered a hana’ah? Rav Shlomo Zalman explains that the klal “Mitzvos Lav Li’henos Nitnu” means that the Torah qualifies which type of pleasure is forbidden when something is assur bi’hanaah: only the derivation of physical pleasure from something that is assur bi’hanaah. Mitzvah fulfillment was not forbidden, despite the joy and pleasure derived. Therefore, in regard to shemen zayis shel shvi’is, the joy and pleasure derived through burning the oil and fulfilling the mitzvah is most certainly productive consumption, and not a hefsed.

The Piskei Teshuvah (siman 94 in hagahos) addresses the question of “Mitzvos Lav Li’henos Nitnu,” as well. The opinion of the Ba’al HaMaor (Rosh Hashanah) is that the klal does not apply to mitzvos D’Rabanan. Therefore, he reasons, ner Chanukah is a mitzvah Mi’drabanan, and in fact “lihenos nitnu.” Rav Menachem  Zemba adds that this answer can be found in the Mareh Panim to Yerushalmi (sof Terumos). The Mareh Panim assurs oil of terumah, which has an issur hana’ah, for neiros Chanukah. Asks the Mareh Panim, why is the hadlakah not permitted based on ”Mitzvos Lav Li’henos Nitnu?” He answers that mitzvos Di’rabanan are “lihenos nitnu,” like the reasoning of the Piskei Teshuvah. However, Rav Menachem Zemba writes that perhaps a chiluk can be made: Although a mitzvah Mi’drabanan is considered hana’ah, and one may therefore not burn terumah oil for Chanukah neiros, as terumah is assur bi’hanaah, still oil of shvi’is may be forbidden for ner Chanukah. Even though a kiyum mitzvah Mi’drbanan is considered hana’ah, but relative to the greater physical pleasure that could be derived from the actual oil, i.e. by means of its’ light or heat, the kiyum Mitzvah benefit would be form of being mafsid the productive use of the actual oil, and forbidden.

It must be noted, that this discussion continues among contemporary poskim. Rav Wosner (Shu”t Shevet HaLevi chelek 1, siman 184) paskens that it is best to avoid shvi’is oil, but mei’ikar hadin it is muttar. He explains that it is permissible to derive benefit from neiros Chanukah from a distance, in order to illuminate the location of a doorway or the like, and is therefore not a hefsed of the shemen even while it burns for the Mitzvas Chanukah. Rav Elyashiv (Ha’aros to Bechoros 12b) explains that even those that are lenient and permit the use shmittah oil when lighting inside a person’s home, would forbid shvi’is oil to be used when the mitzvah is performed outside the home (al pesach beiso), as prescribed by the Shulchan Aruch, because no personal, physical benefit is gained, even from a distance. The position of the Chazon Ish, as quoted by Rav Chaim Greineman in his sefer Imrei Yosher (sof Nezikin), is the use of shemen shel shvi’is is assur.

Adapted by Aryeh L. Goldstein from a Shiur by Rav Avrohom Dovid Waxman, Shlit”a, R”M B’Yeshivas Mishkan HaTorah, Lakewood.

[TLS via Kuntris Magazine]