Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 266:24-267:2

Sugya Map

• Issue: The precise moment and mechanism by which a woman accepts Shabbat through hadlakat ner Shabbat, especially concerning tosefet Shabbat and the efficacy of an explicit stipulation (tenai) not to accept Shabbat immediately upon lighting.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Whether a woman who lights candles before shekiya (or even before plag ha'mincha) is automatically forbidden from performing melachah post-lighting.
  • The validity of stipulating not to accept Shabbat while lighting, and the precise timing this stipulation must be made.
  • The halacha for one who lit candles be'di'eved (e.g., very late, or without a prior stipulation) and its impact on kabalat Shabbat.
  • The distinction between a woman's kabalat Shabbat via hadlakah and a man's kabalat Shabbat via hadlakah or tefillah.
• Primary Sources:
  • Gemara, Shabbat 23b.
  • Rif, Shabbat 10a (Vilna ed.).
  • Tosafot, Shabbat 23b s.v. "אשה".
  • Rambam, Hilchot Shabbat 5:1.
  • Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 263:10, 266:1-2.
  • Magen Avraham, Orach Chaim 263:10.
  • Taz, Orach Chaim 263:10.
  • Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 266:24-267:2.

Text Snapshot

The Arukh HaShulchan delves into the intricate relationship between lighting Shabbat candles and the acceptance of Shabbat:

"והנה המגן אברהם סעיף קטן י"ג כתב דיש חילוק בין הדלקת נרות שבת להדלקת נרות חנוכה אם אשה מדלקת נרות שבת קודם פלג המנחה ורוצה להתנות שלא לקבל שבת מותר אבל אם מדלקת אחר פלג המנחה אינה יכולה להתנות שלא לקבל שבת דהוי כקבלת שבת וצריכה לומר בפירוש קודם ההדלקה שאינה מקבלת שבת בהדלקה והנה זהו קולא לתשובת רב נטרונאי גאון שהובא בטור שס"ה דלא מהני תנאי אחר פלג המנחה [דף רסו: סעיף כה]"^[1]

"אבל אם הדליקה אחר השקיעה וכיבתה אינה מועלת לה שום תנאי שכבר נכנסה שבת וחיללה שבת ומוטב שלא תדליק כלל ופשוט הוא דלא כהב"ח שכתב דכל שעדיין לא קידשה אין לה חילול שבת בהדלקה וליכא מי שיסכים לדבריו וגם לומר שקודם קידוש הוי כיום חול הרי מבואר בש"ס דבין קידש ובין לא קידש הוי שבת לענין איסור מלאכה וכמו שכתבתי בסימן רע"א ע"ש וכן המנהג פשוט דאשה המדלקת נרות שבת נעשית שבת ואסורה במלאכה [דף רסו: סעיף כו]"^[2]

"ולא מצאתי בספרי הפוסקים הראשונים שום חילוק בין לפני פלג המנחה לאחר פלג המנחה וגם לא חילוק בין קודם שתדליק לאחרי שתדליק אלא אדרבה רוב הראשונים סוברים דקבלת שבת הוא על ידי תפלת מנחה בערב שבת ולא על ידי הדלקה והמגן אברהם סעיף קטן ז' כתב דאם התפלל בערב שבת מנחה והדליק נרות שבת בביתו אחר שיצא מבית הכנסת שפיר דמי ואין בזה חילול שבת [דף רסז: סעיף א]"^[3]

"אלא ודאי דלכתחלה טוב לומר קודם הדלקה שאינה מקבלת שבת, אבל מכל מקום בדיעבד אם לא אמרה כלום מותרת במלאכה כל זמן שלא קיבלה שבת בתפלה או בקידוש. וכן המנהג פשוט שאין הנשים מקבלות שבת בהדלקה כי אם לכתחלה אבל בדיעבד אין להן קבלה עד שעת קידוש או תפלה. [דף רסז: סעיף ב]"^[4]

• Dikduk/Leshon nuance: The Arukh HaShulchan uses phrases like "והנה המגן אברהם כתב" (266:24) to introduce the view he intends to challenge, and "ולא מצאתי בספרי הפוסקים הראשונים שום חילוק" (267:1) to assert his position based on the absence of support for the Magen Avraham's stringency among Rishonim. His conclusion, "אלא ודאי" (267:2), signals a definitive psak that often represents a return to a simpler, more widely accepted understanding of the sugya, often diverging from later Acharonim who introduced stricter interpretations. The use of "וכן המנהג פשוט" (266:26, 267:2) is crucial, as the Arukh HaShulchan frequently anchors his psak in prevailing practice, even when it seems to contradict theoretical stringencies.

Readings

The Stringent Stance: Magen Avraham (R' Avraham Gombiner, c. 1635-1683)

The Magen Avraham (OC 263:10)^[5] introduces a significant stringency regarding a woman's kabalat Shabbat through hadlakat nerot. His chiddush, as presented by the Arukh HaShulchan, is multi-layered:

1. Timing of Stipulation: If a woman lights before Plag HaMincha, she can light and stipulate not to accept Shabbat. However, if she lights after Plag HaMincha, lighting itself is so potent in accepting Shabbat that she must explicitly stipulate before lighting that she is not accepting Shabbat with the act of hadlakah. If she fails to do so, she automatically accepts Shabbat.
2. Rationale for Stringency: The Magen Avraham views hadlakat ner Shabbat after Plag HaMincha as a form of "entrance into Shabbat" (kabalat Shabbat), akin to the community's acceptance through Barchu in Maariv. This is rooted in the concept of tosefet Shabbat, where one adds from the weekday to the holy, and the act of lighting serves as the personal commencement of this tosefet.
3. No Stipulation After Shekiya: If she lights after shekiya, any stipulation is meaningless, as Shabbat has already commenced, and she has violated the prohibition of melachah on Shabbat. This point is less controversial, but it underscores the Magen Avraham's overall strict approach to the timing and impact of hadlakah.

The Arukh HaShulchan explicitly challenges the Magen Avraham's distinction between before and after Plag HaMincha and his requirement for a pre-lighting stipulation, arguing that these are not found in the Rishonim.

The Lenient Stance: Arukh HaShulchan (R' Yechiel Michel Epstein, 1829-1908)

The Arukh HaShulchan directly confronts the Magen Avraham's position, primarily based on his understanding of the Rishonim and common practice (minhag). His chiddush and counter-arguments are:

1. Absence in Rishonim: He states, "ולא מצאתי בספרי הפוסקים הראשונים שום חילוק בין לפני פלג המנחה לאחר פלג המנחה וגם לא חילוק בין קודם שתדליק לאחרי שתדליק" (OC 267:1)^[6]. This is a powerful methodological claim, asserting that the Magen Avraham's fine distinctions lack foundational support in earlier, authoritative texts. He implicitly relies on Rif and Tosafot, who hold that tosefet Shabbat is not obligatory, and kabalat Shabbat for the individual is typically through tefillah or kiddush for men, and for women, it's more flexible.
2. Primary Mode of Kabalat Shabbat: The Arukh HaShulchan argues that for most Rishonim, the primary mode of kabalat Shabbat is through tefillat Mincha on Erev Shabbat (for men), and not necessarily through hadlakah. He cites the Magen Avraham himself (OC 263:7)^[7] on a different point, where a man who prayed Mincha before Shabbat can light candles after leaving shul without violating Shabbat, implying that hadlakah doesn't necessarily impose Shabbat.
3. Emphasis on Kavanah (Intention): While leChatchila (ideally), a woman should stipulate before lighting if she doesn't want to accept Shabbat immediately, be'di'eved (post-facto), if she made no such stipulation, she is still permitted to perform melachah as long as she has not explicitly accepted Shabbat through tefillah or kiddush (OC 267:2)^[8]. This places a strong emphasis on subjective intent rather than objective act.
4. Minhag Ha'Olam: Crucially, the Arukh HaShulchan buttresses his lenient psak with the observation that "וכן המנהג פשוט שאין הנשים מקבלות שבת בהדלקה כי אם לכתחלה אבל בדיעבד אין להן קבלה עד שעת קידוש או תפלה" (OC 267:2)^[9]. This appeal to widespread practice is a hallmark of the Arukh HaShulchan's methodology, often used to temper stringencies introduced by Acharonim.

In essence, the Arukh HaShulchan rejects the Magen Avraham's automatic acceptance of Shabbat through hadlakah after Plag HaMincha without prior stipulation, favoring a view where a woman's kabalat Shabbat is primarily driven by her explicit intention or a later formal act (like kiddush or tefillah), aligning with the broader understanding of tosefet Shabbat as non-obligatory.

Friction

The Strongest Kushya

The primary kushya against the Arukh HaShulchan's more lenient stance, and by extension against the Rishonim he implicitly invokes, is the apparent tension with the universally accepted principle that "אשה המדלקת נרות שבת נעשית שבת ואסורה במלאכה" (OC 266:26)^[10], which the Arukh HaShulchan himself states as "פשוט הוא" and "כן המנהג פשוט". If it is "simple" and "the clear custom" that a woman who lights candles becomes Shabbat and is forbidden melachah, how can the Arukh HaShulchan then argue that be'di'eved, if she didn't intend, she is mutteret be'melachah until kiddush or tefillah? This seems to be a direct contradiction within his own words. If the act of hadlakah inherently signifies kabalat Shabbat for a woman, what room is left for a lack of intention to override this established minhag and principle? The Magen Avraham's strictness, requiring a prior stipulation after Plag HaMincha, seems to flow logically from this very principle. If hadlakah is the kabalat Shabbat, then it should be treated as such, and any deviation should require an explicit tenai to negate its default effect. The Arukh HaShulchan's nuance between leChatchila and be'Di'eved for kabalat Shabbat via hadlakah appears to undermine the very chazakah (presumption) that hadlakah establishes Shabbat for the woman.

The Best Terutz

The Arukh HaShulchan's resolution lies in a nuanced distinction between the effect of hadlakah and the mechanism of kabalat Shabbat. While it is "פשוט" that a woman who lights becomes Shabbat, this means that leChatchila, the act of lighting is intended and understood as her acceptance of Shabbat. This is the ideal and customary way a woman accepts Shabbat. However, the Arukh HaShulchan (OC 267:1-2)^[11] argues that this minhag and general understanding do not elevate hadlakah to an obligatory act of kabalat Shabbat in all circumstances, particularly when intention is lacking or when tosefet Shabbat itself is non-obligatory.

The terutz is that the "פשטות" that a woman becomes Shabbat through lighting refers to the leChatchila scenario, where she lights with the standard intention to usher in Shabbat. This is the common practice and expectation. However, this does not mean that hadlakah is an intrinsic, automatic halachic mechanism for kabalat Shabbat for women, divorced from their intent, especially concerning tosefet Shabbat. The Arukh HaShulchan emphasizes that "רוב הראשונים סוברים דקבלת שבת הוא על ידי תפלת מנחה בערב שבת ולא על ידי הדלקה" (OC 267:1)^[12]. While this refers to men primarily, it grounds the idea that hadlakah is not the sine qua non of kabalat Shabbat for everyone.

For women, hadlakah became the symbol and leChatchila act of accepting Shabbat due to its significance. Yet, be'di'eved, if her intention was not to accept Shabbat immediately (or if she was lighting for others and not herself), the act itself is not strong enough to unilaterally impose Shabbat upon her, against her will or without her explicit kavanah. The Arukh HaShulchan explicitly states: "אבל מכל מקום בדיעבד אם לא אמרה כלום מותרת במלאכה כל זמן שלא קיבלה שבת בתפלה או בקידוש. וכן המנהג פשוט שאין הנשים מקבלות שבת בהדלקה כי אם לכתחלה אבל בדיעבד אין להן קבלה עד שעת קידוש או תפלה" (OC 267:2)^[13]. The minhag that women accept Shabbat via hadlakah is therefore qualified: it is a minhag leChatchila, a preferred and expected practice, but not a gezeirat din (halachic decree) that binds one be'di'eved without intention, especially given the non-obligatory nature of tosefet Shabbat itself according to Rif and Tosafot. The phrase "נעשית שבת" should be understood as a description of the leChatchila outcome, not a strict, unyielding halachic imposition.

Intertext

Tosefet Yom Kippur

The concept of tosefet — adding from the mundane to the holy — is perhaps most prominently seen in tosefet Yom Kippur. The Gemara in Yoma 81b^[14] discusses the obligation to add to Yom Kippur from both before and after, stating "תוספת יום הכפורים מן התורה". This is a de'Oraita obligation, unlike tosefet Shabbat which is de'Rabbanan (as derived from Yerushalmi Brachot 5:1^[15] and explained by Rishonim). The comparison highlights the Arukh HaShulchan's implicit reasoning. If tosefet Shabbat is de'Rabbanan and, according to Rif and Tosafot, not even universally obligatory, then the mechanism for accepting it should be more flexible and reliant on individual intent than for a de'Oraita tosefet like Yom Kippur. The Arukh HaShulchan's argument against the Magen Avraham's strictness regarding hadlakah and tosefet Shabbat gains strength from the inherent difference in the halachic weight of tosefet in these two contexts. If tosefet Shabbat itself is not strictly binding, then the machloket regarding whether an act automatically triggers it becomes more understandable, with the Arukh HaShulchan leaning towards flexibility.

Kabalat Mitzvot and Kavanah

The broader sugya of kabalat mitzvot (accepting mitzvot) and the role of kavanah (intention) in halacha provides another parallel. For instance, the discussion around kabalat ol malchut Shamayim during Keriat Shema (Berachot 13a^[16]) emphasizes kavanah as a prerequisite for fulfilling the mitzvah. Similarly, the Shulchan Arukh (OC 60:4)^[17] states that if one recited Shema without kavanah, they have not fulfilled their obligation. While hadlakat ner Shabbat is an act, its kabalat Shabbat component for the individual is a form of kabalat mitzvot. The Arukh HaShulchan's insistence that be'di'eved, without explicit intention, a woman has not accepted Shabbat even after lighting, aligns with this broader principle of kavanah being essential for the spiritual and halachic efficacy of an act that involves acceptance or commitment. The act alone, without the inner disposition, may be insufficient to trigger the full halachic consequence of kabalat Shabbat.

Psak/Practice

The Arukh HaShulchan's psak in this sugya has significant implications for contemporary halachic practice. He effectively adopts a more lenient and widely accepted approach, pushing back against the Magen Avraham's stringencies. Practically, this means:

1. Flexibility for Women: A woman lighting Shabbat candles is leChatchila considered to have accepted Shabbat immediately upon lighting. However, be'di'eved, if she did not explicitly intend to accept Shabbat at that moment (e.g., she lit for others, or simply forgot to stipulate), she has not automatically accepted Shabbat and may still perform melachah until she formally accepts Shabbat through kiddush, tefillah, or an explicit declaration. This is a significant kalut for practical scenarios, allowing for more latitude in a household where not everyone is ready to accept Shabbat simultaneously.
2. Stipulation Still Recommended leChatchila: While not strictly necessary be'di'eved, the Arukh HaShulchan still advises that "לכתחלה טוב לומר קודם הדלקה שאינה מקבלת שבת" (OC 267:2)^[18] if one desires to perform melachah after lighting. This ensures clarity of intention and aligns with the ideal practice.
3. Against Automatic Acceptance: The Arukh HaShulchan's ruling reinforces that tosefet Shabbat for women through hadlakah is primarily a matter of kavanah and minhag leChatchila, rather than an automatic, binding halachic outcome. This understanding is reflected in much of contemporary psak which prioritizes individual kavanah over strict, unyielding adherence to the Magen Avraham's position on this particular issue.

Takeaway

The Arukh HaShulchan deftly navigates the interplay of hadlakah, kabalat Shabbat, and tosefet Shabbat, re-centering kavanah and communal minhag as the arbiters of a woman's Shabbat acceptance, even when challenging the stringencies of prominent Acharonim. His approach underscores that halacha often prioritizes practical living and established practice over theoretical stringencies lacking clear Rishonic support.

---

[1] Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 266:24 [2] Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 266:26 [3] Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 267:1 [4] Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 267:2 [5] Magen Avraham, Orach Chaim 263:10 [6] Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 267:1 [7] Magen Avraham, Orach Chaim 263:7 [8] Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 267:2 [9] Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 267:2 [10] Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 266:26 [11] Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 267:1-2 [12] Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 267:1 [13] Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 267:2 [14] Yoma 81b [15] Yerushalmi Brachot 5:1 [16] Berachot 13a [17] Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 60:4 [18] Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 267:2