(2008/5768)

Introduction

In this essay, we will focus on a Teshuvah written by Rabbi Asher Bush (Shoel BeShelomo 16) regarding forgetting to light candles for Shabbat.  This article will highlight several of the basic concepts that play out in the Halachot of Neirot Shabbat.  I would like to thank both Rabbi Chaim Jachter and Rabbi Bush for their interest in this essay, which helped insure its Halachic accuracy and fidelity to the original Teshuvah.

The Case

A woman forgot to light Neirot Shabbat in her house.  However, there were electric lights already lit for Shabbat.  The woman asked Rabbi Bush whether she must act in accordance with the Rama’s ruling (O.C. 263:1) that a woman who forgets to light Neirot Shabbat must light an additional candle every subsequent week.  It is vital to note that the source of the Rama’s ruling is the Maharil, a late Ashkenazic Rishon who records Minhagim.  Because this requirement to light an additional candle is a “mere” custom, we generally will treat it more lightly than if it were a full-fledged Halachah.

Two reasons are given for this custom. The simple explanation (see Mishnah Berurah 263:7) is that there is a fine (Kenas) for forgetting to light candles.  The imposition of a Kenas will remind the woman to be careful to light candles every week.  The more esoteric explanation is that Neirot Shabbat serve as a Tikkun (reparation) for Chavah’s sin of eating from the Eitz HaDaat.  Lighting candles brings light into the world, which replaces the light that was removed when Chavah sinned.  Some explain this to be the reason why women rather than men usually fulfill the Mitzvah of Neirot Shabbat (Mishnah Berurah 263:12).

Two fundamental questions must be answered in order to determine whether the woman in Rabbi Bush’s case must light an additional candle every subsequent week.  Firstly, does one fulfill the obligation of Neirot Shabbat with electricity?  Second, do electric lights that the woman lit without intention to fulfill the Mitzvah of Neirot Shabbat nevertheless count towards her fulfillment of the Mitzvah?

Electric Lights

The great Poskim of the early-twentieth century were asked whether lit incandescent bulbs are considered fire for purposes of the laws of Shabbat.  The consensus (see Teshuvot Achiezer 3:60 and Chazon Ish O.C. 50:9) was that lighting an incandescent bulb is indeed considered like lighting a fire.  In fact, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik once related that Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski (considered the leading Halachic authority for European Jews until his death in 1939) deliberately used an incandescent bulb for Havdalah in order to demonstrate this point.  Although the practice is not to use electricity for Shabbat candles, it can be used in cases of pressing need (such as in a hotel, where lighting candles in the room is prohibited, or in a hospital, where lighting candles anywhere is proscribed).  Thus, the first question has been resolved in the affirmative.

Chovat HaBayit

Rabbi Bush next seeks to demonstrate that the Mitzvah of Neirot Shabbat can be fulfilled even if the woman does not light the candles.  For example, if the woman for some reason is unable to light, her husband (or any other household member) is obligated to light.  The reason for this is that lighting candles is an obligation incumbent upon the house (Chovat HaBayit), not upon the woman (Chovat HaGuf).  Yet nowhere do any of the Poskim consider imposing the requirement of lighting an extra candle if the husband lit, for the main purpose of Neirot Shabbat is for the house to be illuminated for Shabbat, which can be accomplished no matter who lights.

Similarly, if a woman remembers during Bein HaShemashot (Halachic twilight, which, for these purposes, lasts for approximately 25 minutes after sundown; see Rav Mordechai Willig’s Am Mordechai Berachot 2) that she did not light Neirot Shabbat, she may instruct a non-Jew to light for her.  The reason for this permission is that Bein HaShemashot is considered “Safeik Yom Safeik Laylah,” possibly day and possibly night (Shabbat 34b).  During this period of doubt, the Rabbanan (Rabbis) relaxed their injunction of Amirah LeNochri for the purpose of a Mitzvah.  Accordingly, asking the non-Jew during Bein HaShemashot to perform the Mitzvah of Hadlakat Neirot Shabbat is permitted.  In this case as well, none of the Poskim apply the Rama’s Kenas.  In fact, some Poskim advise this solution in cases in which no one will be home for most of Friday night (such as attending a wedding meal on Friday that will last well into the night). 

Based on these two precedents, it is clear that the main purpose in lighting Neirot Shabbat is not to do the actual lighting, but rather to have the house lit via lighting.  Accordingly, since in Rabbi Bush’s case the house was indeed lit by electric lights for Shabbat, logically no Kenas would be necessary, since the purpose of the Mitzvah has been fulfilled.

Lighting Early – Rabbeinu Tam vs. Rabbeinu Meshulam

Nevertheless, there is a dispute as to the extent to which this idea can be applied.  Tosafot (Shabbat 25b s.v. Chovah) present the view of Rabbeinu Meshulam that if a candle was burning before Shabbat, there is no need to extinguish it and relight it for the purpose of Neirot Shabbat.  Rabbeinu Meshulam feels that if the house is lit for Shabbat, there is no need to light a candle specifically for the sake of Neirot Shabbat.  According to this approach, the woman in Rabbi Bush’s case clearly fulfilled the Mitzvah of Neirot Shabbat, for even though she did not have intention to light for Shabbat, the Mitzvah can be fulfilled without such intent as long as there is light in the house.

However, Tosafot also cite Rabbeinu Tam, who disagrees with Rabbeinu Meshulam and maintains that the candle must be extinguished and relit for the sake of Neirot Shabbat.  Rabbeinu Tam believes that although it does not matter how the house became lit up, it must be illuminated for the sake of Shabbat.  According to this position, the woman in Rabbi Bush’s case would fulfill the Mitzvah of Neirot Shabbat only if she lit the electric lights intending that the house be lit for Shabbat.  The Rama (O.C. 263: 4) accepts Rabbeinu Tam’s view.

The Beiur Halacha (263:6 s.v. Bachurim), in fleshing out these points, explains that there are two distinct aspects to the Mitzvah of Neirot Shabbat.  First, every person is required to light candles (Maaseh Hadlakah).  Second, there must be light in every room that a person intends to use, such that no one’s Oneg Shabbat will be disrupted by lack of light (Shelom Bayit).  In order to fulfill the Mitzvah, both requirements must be met.  In Rabbi Bush’s case, the house clearly was lit, so the need for Shelom Bayit certainly was met.

Rabbi Bush contends that even though the woman did not intend to fulfill the Mitzvah of Neirot Shabbat with the electric lights, she also performed the requisite Maaseh Hadlakah.  The Mishnah Berurah (263:20) rules that if a light was lit after Plag HaMinchah (one and one quarter Halachic hours before sunset) for the sake of illuminating the house for Shabbat, BeDiavad (post facto) the Mitzvah of Neirot Shabbat has been fulfilled even if there was no intent to begin/accept Shabbat with this act of candle lighting.  Rabbi Bush argues that if electric lights were lit after Plag HaMinchah, we can assume that they were lit for the sake of illuminating the house for Shabbat.  In fact, he reports that he was asked this question a second time, and, upon being asked what her intentions had been when lighting the electric lights, the woman replied that she wanted the house to be lit for Shabbat.  Therefore, the woman’s kindling the electric lights can be considered a Maaseh Hadlakah, meaning that she fulfilled both requirements of the Mitzvah of Neirot Shabbat, in which case and the Kenas of the Rama would not apply.

Conclusion

Next week, we will (IY”H and B”N) conclude our presentation of Rabbi Bush’s Teshuva and discuss the rulings of other Poskim about this issue.