Random Shiur Klali I Enjoyed From:
RABBI DONIEL LANDER
There is no reason to assume that one must own oil in order to use to light a menorah. There is no, "l'chem," commandment, and no reason to assume that it is necessary. However, the gemara discusses how a guest should light while living in another home. It says that he should pay the owner of the house a small sum of money, and in that way he will become a partner in the lighting of the house-owner. The Ran points out that if it were allowed, it would obviously be simpler for the owner to simply lend his guest a portion of his oil. From this he concludes that this must not be the case, and that one must own the oil he wishes to light with.
Secondly, there are many opinions as to when we use the format of, "li (to)," in our blessings, as opposed to "al (on)." The Ramban suggests that one can only say, "al," on mitzvos that can be performed through a shliach (appointee). However, mitzvos that one must do on his own are formatted, "li." (This is problematic for many reasons, lulav being one of them, but putting those aside,) the blessing we make on lighting Chanuka candles seems to counter this suggestion. For one may ask his wife etc. to light for him, yet the blessing is formatted, "lihadlik ner shel chanuka." The Ramban dismisses this problem by arguing that since you must own the oil in order for it to be used, and one can only appoint his wife or someone of the like (,as opposed to a random broski from the street), the shlichus (appointment) here is different, and the proper format for the blessing is still, "li." The ability to appoint a shliach to perform a mitzvah would generally reveal that the commandment in general is not of the kind that one must actively perform, but rather merely see to it that it gets done. That is not the case here.
Rabbi (Joseph B.) Soloveitchik argues with those who quote the above two sources as proof that one can only light with oil that he owns. He notices that the two cases mentioned above are different from most cases of lighting a menorah. The two situations are both ones in which someone else is being used. It is only in this situation, Rabbi Soloveitchik says, that one must own the oil. The blessing language is proper, but the appointment of the shliach here is not for him to fulfill the commandment for the man who appointed him. The commander must be actively performing the act, albeit through a form of robot, as it were. That is why he must own the oil. However, ordinarily, when one is clearly actively performing the mitzvah, he would not need to own the oil.
Rabbi (Shlomo Zalman) Auerbach makes a similar conclusion, and writes that if someone were to be lighting for woman who does not know how to light on her own candles, he would have to ensure that she is present while he lights and makes the blessing. She needs to show her active participation in the fulfillment of the mitzvah. Based on this, he also permits the use children, deaf-mutes, mentally challenged people, and non-Jews as shluchim, as long as they are being directly commanded by he who they are performing the mitzvah for.
Why, though, is all this necessary? This question is especially true if the main point of lighting the candles is for publicizing the miracle. Why isn't the obligation simply to see to it that candles are lit? The answer is similar to the reason for modim d'rabanan. The rest of the repetition of the amidah is said by the chazzan alone, without the input of the congregation. This is because thanks has to be personal. One cannot tell someone, "tell him I say thank you." The congregation cannot have the chazzan thank God for them. Lighting the menorah is a form of thanking God. It has to be personal. If we are not giving up our time to actively light the candles, we must at least own the oil.
