Shabbos candles
[1] (Halacha 430)
Question: Must one be particular to light Shabbos candles with olive oil?
Answer: The Mishnah in Maseches Shabbos1 discusses the oils fit for the lighting of Shabbos candles: '.. and the Chachomim permit all the oils .. Rabbi Tarfon says: one may light only with olive oil alone'.
And the halacha was ruled like the Chachomim2, and as the Rambam wrote3: 'It is permitted to light l'chatchilah with other oils, such as radish oil, sesame oil, turnip oil and all similar to them; only those that the Chachomim enumerated are forbidden'.
But nevertheless we find that there is a superior quality in lighting with olive oil, as follows:
The Gemara there4 states: 'Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: all the oils are all fine for the candle, and olive oil is of the choicest. Abaye said: at first the master would seek out sesame oil, saying: this one draws out its light more. Once he heard this teaching of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, he would seek out olive oil, saying: this one's light is clearer'.
And Tosafos wrote there: 'At first the master would seek out sesame oil - it appears that this refers to the Chanukah candle, and because of the reason he concludes, that its light is greater; but for the Shabbos candle it is obvious that olive oil is a mitzvah of the choicest, since it is drawn after the wick more than all of them, as is proven in the Mishnah, that all agree regarding it that one may light with it'.
And the Pa'aneach Raza wrote in Parshas Emor: 'ויקחו אליך שמן וגו' ("And they shall take to you oil etc."), this was juxtaposed to the festivals etc., for it is a mitzvah of the choicest to light for Shabbosos and Yomim Tovim with olive oil'.
And in Sefer Chassidim5 it is brought: 'There was an incident with one who lived a long life, and they could find no merit for him other than that he would not light with tallow on erev Shabbos, but rather with olive oil'.
And as halacha the Mechaber wrote6: 'All the other oils, apart from these, one may light with them; and nevertheless olive oil is a mitzvah of the choicest'. And so too wrote the Alter Rebbe7.
And the Chida wrote8: 'Olive oil is a mitzvah etc., and in a place where olive oil is available one must be careful with it, for one who is regular with the candle merits sons who are rabbonim; and therefore one must be careful with the candle to make it as perfect as possible, in order to merit sons who illuminate in Torah, which is compared to olive oil. And this is along the lines of what the Tur wrote above, siman 263, that one should be careful to make a fine candle, for Rav Huna said: one who is regular with the Shabbos candle, to endeavor to make it fine, merits sons who are talmidei chachomim; and the Rav Bach explained that the lighting of the candle is an obligation, and if so, perforce that which one merits sons who are rabbonim is if he does more than his obligation, to make a fine candle - see there. And for this reason one must be careful with olive oil, in order to merit sons who illuminate in Torah, who are pleasant with one another in halacha like olive oil, as it says in perek Zeh Borer (Sanhedrin 24) that the talmidei chachomim who are in Eretz Yisroel are compared to olive oil, for they are pleasant with one another in halacha'.
However, we find in the poskim that the minhag in many places was to light with candles and not with olive oil, as the Gra"ch Naeh writes9, although he objected to this minhag: 'The candle over which one makes the bracha - one should be particular that it be of olive oil, because of the honor of the bracha, and so is the minhag in Eretz Yisroel from ancient years (only those from chutz la'aretz who came recently to Eretz Yisroel do as they were accustomed in chutz la'aretz, to light tallow or stearin candles, for they were not accustomed to the preparation of the candle and to the preparation of the wicks; and nevertheless it would be fitting that they light specifically with olive oil)'.
However, regarding what the Gra"ch Naeh wrote, that they were not accustomed to the preparation of the candle etc., it is written concerning his words in Shu"t Migdanos Eliyahu10 that it is on account of a halachic reason, that with a liquid oil there is more of a concern that he may tilt it; for we find that the Alter Rebbe wrote11: 'Even though all the oils apart from those that the Chachomim enumerated are valid to light with them l'chatchilah, it is a mitzvah of the choicest to seek after olive oil, just as for the Chanukah candle, as will be explained in siman 673. And if olive oil is not available, there is a greater mitzvah with other oils whose light is pure and clear than with candles of tallow and of wax that are wound, since there are those who forbid them, for they do not distinguish between invalid oil placed in a vessel and that which is wound around the wick. And if he must learn at night by the light of the candle, he should light a wound candle and not one that is not wound, since with a wound one there is a heter to learn, as will be explained in siman 275; and there is a greater mitzvah with a wax candle than with a tallow one, since its light is clearer'.
And moreover the Mishnah Berurah wrote12: 'And it appears to me that all this is according to the nature of the candle, for with our candles [which are called stearin], which are certainly clearer than wax, and one is not accustomed to tilt with them even during the week, this is preferable to a wax candle, and perhaps even to all the oils, for certainly he will not come to tilt13'.
And there are those who wrote14 that the entire hiddur mitzvah that we find to light with olive oil for Shabbos candles is only on account of the clarity of the light, and with our candles, whose light is clear, there is no advantage to olive oil.
And in practice, regarding the Chabad minhag, the Rebbe writes15: 'In the home of my father-in-law the Rebbe I never once saw that they lit with oil (olive oil or the like) for the candles of Shabbos Kodesh and Yom Tov, but rather with tallow candles, and the opposite with Chanukah candles; I have not heard a reason for this'.
And the Rebbe further writes16 with regard to the words of the Gemara in Shabbos 23a, there, that the mitzvah of the Chanukah candle is of the choicest with olive oil, that it 'applies also to Shabbos candles. And see Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe siman 264 se'if 12. But go out and see what the people do - minhag Yisroel17. And see Ateres Zekeinim, beginning of siman 673'.
And so too Rebbetzin Chaya Mushka a"h related18 that she lights with candles in candlesticks and not with oil.
Thus we have seen that there are those who had the minhag to light Shabbos candles specifically with olive oil, but there are those who had the minhag to light with ordinary candles, and such is our minhag.
----------------------------------------------
Notes:
1 24b ↩
2 See also Beis Yosef siman 264, but note Tanya Rabbasi siman 12, brought below in the words of the Machzik Bracha ↩
3 Hilchos Shabbos ch. 5 halacha 11 ↩
4 23a ↩
5 (Margolios) siman 272, but see Shu"t Az Nidberu cited below, note 14 ↩
6 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 264 se'if 6 ↩
7 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 264 se'if 12, to be brought below ↩
8 Machzik Bracha ibid. s"k 2 ↩
9 Ketzos HaShulchan siman 74, Badei HaShulchan s"k 4 ↩
10 Vol. 1 siman 30 os 1 ↩
11 Cited in note 7 ↩
12 Ibid. s"k 23 ↩
13 And see also what is written in Hearos U'Biurim issue 938 p. 79 ↩
14 Shu"t Az Nidberu vol. 3 siman 4 ↩
15 Likutei Sichos vol. 21 p. 382 ↩
16 Likutei Sichos vol. 35 p. 320 note 21 ↩
17 Note Halichos U'Minhagei Shabbos Kodesh ch. 2 p. 21, where it is related that the Rebbe told someone that since your wife has already been accustomed to light with olive oil, it is proper that she continue so also in the future ↩
18 Yemei Melech vol. 3 p. 1254 ↩
[2] (Halacha 442)
Question: Must one singe the candles before the actual lighting?
Answer: In Maseches Shabbos1 it is stated: 'Mishnah. A wick of cloth that one folded and did not singe, Rabbi Eliezer says: it is tamei and one may not light with it; Rabbi Akiva says: it is tahor and one may light with it'.
And Rashi explained2, d.h. ta'ama d'Rabbi Eliezer: 'Regarding lighting, because one may not light with it, since they do not burn well, and on all the Shabbosos of the year it is forbidden, and not because of nolad'.
And Tosafos wrote3: 'And it appears to me that it was for naught that people were accustomed4 to light the wick and extinguish it, so that it should be singed, for the halacha is not like Rabbi Eliezer, since he is a Shamuti; and further we say below that here we are dealing with a wick that requires singeing, which implies that one may light even though it is not singed'.
And along these lines the Rosh wrote5 that the halacha is not like Rabbi Eliezer, and even so he wrote that this is a fine minhag: 'And the women are accustomed to light the wick and extinguish it, so that it should be singed and the fire take hold of it well, and it is a fine minhag6. However, the halacha is like Rabbi Akiva, that one may light even though it is not charred, for Rabbi Eliezer is a Shamuti..'.
On the other hand, we find Rishonim who required singeing from the letter of the law, and there are those who wrote that actual singeing is not required, but there is a need to pass it through fire, as the Mordechai wrote7: 'And it is ruled in Sefer HaMitzvos that what they were accustomed to do, that they light on erev Shabbos and extinguish them so that the flame should take hold better, is for added measure; and the Behag rules that the halacha is that one may not light with rags nor with a wick that is not charred, and so it is in the Tosefta and also in the commentary of Rabbeinu Chananel; and the Ri [disagrees] and rules that as for charring, that one rubs it .. with fire by way of passing it through, all agree that one must do it, but a complete singeing, to light and to extinguish, one need not do on erev Shabbos, and that is considered like tikun mana on Shabbos'.
And as halacha the Mechaber wrote8: 'One need not singe the wick', but the Rema there in the Hagah wrote: 'And nevertheless they were accustomed to light the wick and extinguish it, so that it should be charred and the fire take hold of it well'. And the Magen Avraham added9: 'And even with a wound candle they do so'.
And these are the words of the Alter Rebbe10: 'From the letter of the law one need not singe the wick over the flame before he lights it, so that it should be charred and burn well; but the women were accustomed to light the wick and extinguish it, so that it should be charred before she lights it for the sake of the mitzvah, so that the fire should take hold of it well, whether with an oil candle or with a wound candle, and it is a fine minhag'.
Thus we have seen that there was a minhag to singe the candles, so that they should burn better. And since there is a matter (about which we will learn next week) that the husband should prepare the candles, therefore there are those who innovated that the singeing of the candles should be done by the husband11.
But in practice many wrote that nowadays they were not accustomed to singe the candles. And as the Gra"ch Naeh wrote12: 'And I have not seen anyone who does so in our times'. And so the Rebbe writes13: 'We do not have the minhag to singe the Shabbos candle before the lighting'.
One of the attendants related14 that he once prepared the candles for lighting in the Rebbe's home, and singed them; when the Rebbetzin a"h saw this, she exchanged the candles for other candles! The attendant R' Sh.D.B. Gansburg also related15 that they did not singe the candles, neither in the Rebbe's home nor did the Rebbe in his holy room in 770.
As to the reason that nowadays this is not practiced, it is explained in Shu"t Chayei HaLevi16: 'And one may say that the reason is that with our candles there is no need to singe, for they stand ready to be lit; and according to what is heard, there was also a matter in this, to light specifically with candles that are not yet singed, so that they should appear whole .. And I further saw in Olas HaChodesh (kuntres 36) that the Admur of Solitza שליט"א wrote that candles today are prepared from the factory with their wicks spread out at their tips so that they should easily take hold of the fire; and on the contrary, if one lights them and extinguishes them, they are no longer as easy to light again as they were at first. Consequently one may say that their preparation for the mitzvah would be only their setting into the candelabrum and the raising of the wick so that it should be proper and ready for the lighting, and in this the husband may have a share in the mitzvah'.
Thus it is not our minhag to singe the candles before lighting them. [But it is good that the husband should assist in the preparation of the candles, as we will learn b'ezras Hashem this coming Friday].
--------------
Notes:
1 28b ↩
2 29a ↩
3 Ibid. d.h. Rava amar ↩
4 In the Tur, Shiras Devorah edition, siman 264, Hagahos V'He'aros os 19, they noted that in all the old printings it is written "women", and what is printed before us, "men", is a scribal error. And note that in the Tur, in some printings it is likewise written: *the men were accustomed*, and the Prisha noted on this, OC siman 264 os 14: the wording of the Asheri is *and they are accustomed*, the men. And they wrote in Hagahos V'He'aros there that apparently he wished to emend that it should read "and the women are accustomed" ↩
5 Shabbos ch. 2 siman 18 ↩
6 And see what the Biur HaGra wrote, OC siman 264 se'if 9: 'that Rabbi Akiva disagrees only as to whether one may light with them', meaning that Rabbi Akiva too agrees that in this way it burns better. An additional reason for singeing was written by the Korban Nesanel, Beitzah ch. 1 siman 1 os 80: 'And on the two days of Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah it is forbidden to light on the night of Yom Tov. It appears to me that for this reason the women are accustomed every erev Shabbos to light the wick and extinguish it before their lighting, because of the concern of those who forbid when Yom Tov falls after Shabbos. And on Rosh Hashanah too this minhag is needed, in order to move and then light afterwards on the second day of Yom Tov. Afterwards I found so in the Mordechai in the name of the Mahara"m of Rothenburg' ↩
7 Shabbos, perek Bameh Madlikin, remez 289, and see also Shiltei Giborim, Shabbos 12b ↩
8 Siman 264 se'if 9 ↩
9 S.k. 15 ↩
10 Siman 264 se'if 14 ↩
11 Chayei Adam klal 5 din 21, brought in Kitzur Shulchan Aruch siman 75 se'if 5. Mishnah Berurah siman 264 s"k 28 ↩
12 Ketzos HaShulchan siman 74, Badei HaShulchan s"k 5 ↩
13 Reshimos HaYoman p. 427 ↩
14 Halichos U'Minhagei Shabbos Kodesh p. 20 ↩
15 In the kovetz B'Kodesh Penima p. 11 ↩
16 Vol. 3 siman 18, and see also Shu"t Revavos Efraim vol. 7 siman 54 os 40 ↩
[3] (Halacha 448)
Question: Must the husband take part in preparing the candles for Shabbos?
Answer: It is brought in the writings of the Arizal that it is upon the husband to prepare the candles, as is written in Pri Etz Chaim1: 'And the preparation of the Shabbos candle - you should be careful with it, but their lighting should be by your wife'. And so too is written in Shaar HaKavanos2: 'Also be careful [=you, the husband] with the preparation of the Shabbos candles3. However, the lighting of the candle is a mitzvah upon the woman, the mistress of the house, as is known'.
The R"M Zacuto4 inferred this practice from the words of the Mishnah in Shabbos perek 2 mishnah 7, regarding the three things a person must ask the members of his household on erev Shabbos: have you made an eiruv, have you tithed, light the candle: 'It does not teach prepare, in order to hint to what is written in Sefer HaTikunim, that the proper thing is that the master of the house should prepare the candle and his wife should light it5'.
Along these lines we find in the words of the Maharsha"l6: 'There: Rav Huna would light a lamp etc. N.B. I found in the long Tosafos, and these are their words: and there were many candles there, and his wife would light another - end quote. And I say that it could be that he lit first so that his wife should be the one lighting the candle of the mitzvah, and this is easily understood'. And the Tosefes Shabbos explained7: 'And the Maharsha"l explained regarding that which is stated there, that Rav Huna would light a lamp, that is, that he first lit one candle so that his wife should light with it the candles of Shabbos'.
And the Yosef Ometz wrote8: 'And I, the small one, was accustomed myself with the preparation of the candles and the filling of the candlestick'.
This practice was brought in practice in the Magen Avraham9, and these are his words: 'Because they are found. And further, because the woman extinguished the candle of the world. And nevertheless the man should prepare the candles (Kesavim)'.
And so too wrote the Alter Rebbe10: 'And nevertheless it is good that he should occupy himself with the preparation of the wicks and the candles'.
In the year 5735, during the period in which Mivtza Neshek began and that young girls too should light candles, someone wrote to the Rebbe that therefore there is an obligation upon the father to prepare the candles for his household, and that his obligation is not only because of chinuch, but as part of the very mitzvah of lighting candles. And on his words "that the master of the house should prepare", the Rebbe wrote11: It is brought in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe siman 263 se'if 5 (from the Magen Avraham there) in the wording "it is good that he should occupy himself etc." and no more - and further, and principally: quite a number are not careful in this - and therefore I did not wish to bring it.
In practice, the Rebbe in the sicha of 23 Iyar 574912 mentioned: 'And to add that although the lighting of the candles is by the mistress of the house (the akeres habayis), nevertheless minhag Yisroel is that the husband too participates in this (in a symbolic manner at least) by assisting in the preparations for it, such as by handing over the matches or the candles and the like'.
[Seemingly the words of the Rebbe regarding the bringing of the matches are similar to the words of the Tosefes Shabbos, who brought from the Maharsha"l that Rav Huna brought his wife the candle with which she would light the Shabbos candles].
In addition to this it is fitting to note that we find by our Rebbeim, our Nesi'im, that they would come to look at the lighting of the candles by the Rebbetzin, as the Rebbe Rayatz related13 that the Rebbe Mahara"sh had special nigunim for every matter: when he would change his weekday clothes for Shabbos clothes, or the Shabbos clothes for weekday clothes, for every matter he had a special nigun, and the nigun was of two movements. When he would enter on erev Shabbos Kodesh to look at how the Rebbetzin made the bracha over the Shabbos candles, this too was with a special nigun'.
And so it is brought14 regarding the practice of the Rebbe, that he would go to his home or to the library at the time of the lighting of the candles by the Rebbetzin.
Thus we have seen that it is a proper minhag according to Kabbalah, and such is our minhag, that the husband should assist in the preparation for the lighting of the candles, whether in the actual preparation of the candles, or in handing over the matches and the like.
Notes:
1 Shaar HaShabbos ch. 3 ↩
2 Inyan leil vov, d.h. inyan limud ↩
3 In Siduro shel Shabbos vol. 1, shoresh 2, anaf 2, he wrote in the name of the Siddur of the Arizal: *and that is, that you should arrange and set up the candles upon the candelabrum'* ↩
4 In his sefer Kol HaRemez on the Mishnayos ↩
5 The Shoshanim L'Dovid wrote (R' D. Pardo; brought in Tosafos Rabbi Akiva Eiger) on the Mishnah Shabbos perek 2 mishnah 6: 'And regarding the lighting of the candle one should be precise, that just as it does not teach "and with the separation of challah" but rather "and with challah" plainly, so too here it should have said plainly "and with the candle"; and it appears that he wished to hint by this to what is stated in Tikunei HaZohar, that the proper thing is that the master of the house should prepare the candles and his wife should light. For this reason it teaches only lighting, for the preparation is not incumbent upon her. And afterwards I saw that the Rama"z made a similar inference in the Mishnah below, which teaches "light" etc.; and in my humble opinion the inference here is stronger' ↩
6 Hagahos Chochmas Shlomo, Shabbos 119a ↩
7 Siman 263 s"k 7 ↩
8 Vol. 1, the laws of erev Shabbos and its conduct, siman 530 ↩
9 OC siman 263 s"k 7 ↩
10 Shulchan Aruch siman 263 se'if 5 ↩
11 Hiskashrus issue no. 686 ↩
12 Toras Menachem vol. 3 p. 209 note 25 ↩
13 Sefer HaSichos 5704 p. 95 (in the Loshon HaKodesh edition p. 88) ↩
14 Maaseh Melech vol. 2 ch. 1 os 19 p. 127. Orchos Menachem p. 28 ↩
[4] (Halacha 454)
How one accepts Shabbos (1)
Question: When does Shabbos take effect upon a person?
Answer: In general, Shabbos takes effect upon a person by his accepting Shabbos upon himself in his mind1. But even without a clear acceptance of Shabbos in his mind, Shabbos can take effect upon a person through his actions or his speech. And there are in the words of the Rishonim three views as to when a person is considered to have accepted Shabbos upon himself.
a. With the lighting of the candles
The Behag wrote2: 'And where one wishes to light the Chanukah candle and the Shabbos candle, he first lights that of Chanukah and afterwards lights that of Shabbos, for if he lit that of Shabbos first it would be forbidden for him to light that of Chanukah, since he has accepted Shabbos upon himself'.
And the Ran explained3: '..because the Rabbonon instituted thus, that the lighting should be the last melacha and that one should not perform any melacha after it. And this is the reason: because the lighting is a melacha of a mitzvah for the need of Shabbos, and as we say below4, the lighting of the candle on Shabbos is an obligation; and it turns out that it is like the beginning of resting and like its acceptance .. And since all these sugyos prove that the Chachomim instituted that the lighting of the candle should be the last melacha, one who lights the candle has already concluded in his mind that after this melacha he will not perform any other melacha, and you have no greater acceptance of Shabbos than this ..'5.
b. With the bracha over the lighting of the candles
There are those who explained the words of the Behag (who wrote that the acceptance of Shabbos is with the lighting of the candles) that this is because of the bracha that accompanies the lighting, as is written in the sefer Or Zarua6: 'And further he brought a proof from the Behag, who ruled that if he lit the Shabbos candle it is forbidden afterwards to light the Chanukah candle, which is because he made the bracha "to light the candle of Shabbos"; for if not so, with what did he accept Shabbos upon himself'.
And so too wrote the Shibolei HaLeket7: 'And the Behag too forbids lighting the Chanukah candle after the Shabbos candle, since once he made the bracha over the Shabbos candle he has already accepted Shabbos upon himself, and it is forbidden to light the Chanukah candle after that'.
And so too wrote Rabbeinu Peretz in his gloss to Tashbetz Katan8: 'For since she made a bracha over the candle, you have no greater acceptance than this'. And see also the words of the Mahara"m himself, brought in Hagahos Maimoniyos9: '..for if not so, perhaps he is moving it in a forbidden manner after he made the bracha over the Shabbos candle'.
c. With the tefillah of Shabbos
On the other hand, in Hagahos Maimoniyos there it is written: 'Tosafos wrote regarding that which we say in perek Bameh Madlikin, "and he waits the time it takes to roast a small fish", from here R' Shimshon would say that the lighting of the candle on Shabbos is not considered enough to forbid melacha after it, and even though one makes a bracha over it, for it is not considered Shabbos unless he davened tefillas Maariv and sanctified the Shabbos .. and not like the words of the Halachos Gedolos'.
And so too wrote the Rosh10: 'And it appears that the acceptance of Shabbos depends upon tefillas Maariv .. from all of this it is implied that the acceptance of Shabbos depends upon tefillas Maariv, and so the people do: when the chazan says Borchu, everyone withdraws from melacha'.
And in the Shibolei HaLeket, inyan Shabbos there, he wrote: 'And I found in the words of the Geonim z"l that on erev Shabbos, even if he lit the candles, he does not accept Shabbos upon himself so as to forbid himself in melacha until he davens tefillas Maariv, for then, with the bracha "Mekadesh HaShabbos", he accepts it upon himself. And so I found in the name of R' Shimshon zt"l, that the lighting of the candle is not considered an acceptance of Shabbos to forbid himself in melacha, even though he made a bracha over it, unless he davened Maariv and sanctified the Shabbos'.
Thus we have seen the views of the Rishonim as to when Shabbos takes effect upon a person, whether through his actions or his speech.
And as halacha, the Tur11 brought the view of the Behag and those who disagree. And so too the Mechaber12 brought them and wrote: 'According to the Behag, since he lit the Shabbos candle, Shabbos has taken effect upon him and he is forbidden in melacha .. And there are those who disagree with the Baal Halachos Gedolos and say that the acceptance of Shabbos does not depend upon the lighting of the candle but upon tefillas Maariv, for once the chazan has said Borchu, everyone withdraws from their melacha. And for us, since we have begun Mizmor Shir L'Yom HaShabbos, it is like Borchu is for them'.
From the words of the Magen Avraham13 it is implied that the main view is like the words of those who disagree with the Behag.
The Alter Rebbe too14 brought the two views and wrote that the main view is like those who disagree with the Behag. And he wrote: 'There are those who say that since she lit the Shabbos candle, Shabbos has taken effect upon her and she is forbidden in the performance of melacha, unless she stipulated that she is not accepting Shabbos upon herself with this lighting .. And there are those who disagree with this and say that the acceptance of Shabbos does not depend at all upon the lighting of the candles, but upon the beginning of the tefillas Maariv of Shabbos, for once the shliach tzibbur has said Borchu, everyone withdraws from their melacha; and so is the main view15' .
Thus we have seen the essential points as to whether in principle Shabbos takes effect with the lighting of the candles. Next week we will learn what the minhag is in practice, halacha l'maaseh, and whether one may stipulate that we are not accepting Shabbos.
Notes:
1 See Shibolei HaLeket, inyan Shabbos siman 59: 'The rule in all these matters is that we follow the mind of the person in the acceptance of Shabbos, whether with tefillah or with the lighting of the candle, for once he has set in his mind to rest, it is forbidden to do anything' ↩
2 Siman 9 - Hilchos Chanukah p. 158, brought in the Mordechai, Shabbos remez 293 ↩
3 Shabbos 10b of the pages of the Rif ↩
4 Shabbos 25b ↩
5 Note that there are those who understood that the words of the Behag apply not only to the one who lights but to all the members of the household. And see the Semag, asin siman 30, that (the Beis Yosef also brought him as disagreeing with the Behag, and nevertheless) he wrote: '.. it is implied that the lighting of the Shabbos candle is not an acceptance of Shabbos. However, the one who lights himself can be forbidden in melacha'. And see also Tashbetz Katan siman 14: 'It appears that that which we say (above, siman 8), that when they light the candle on erev Shabbos one may stipulate - that is specifically for the members of the household'. That is, that for them too a stipulation is required ↩
6 Hilchos Erev Shabbos siman 11, in the name of Rabbeinu Tam ↩
7 Inyan Shabbos siman 59 ↩
8 Siman 14 ↩
9 Hilchos Shabbos ch. 5 os 200 ↩
10 Shabbos ch. 2 siman 24 ↩
11 OC siman 263 ↩
12 Shulchan Aruch siman 263:11 ↩
13 In the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, first edition, *M"A* is cited in the list of those who disagree with the Behag, and seemingly the intention is to s"k 18 ↩
14 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 263 se'if 7, and see also in se'if 8, where he brought those who hold that it depends upon the bracha ↩
15 And see also the words of the Alter Rebbe in siman 263, Kuntres Acharon s"k 7: 'They hold like the Behag .. but we do not rule so, except regarding women' ↩
[5] (Halacha 459)
How one accepts Shabbos (2)
In halacha no. 454 we learned the various views as to when the acceptance of Shabbos takes effect, and the Alter Rebbe wrote that the main view is like those who disagree with the Behag, and that the acceptance of Shabbos does not depend at all upon the lighting of the candles, but upon Borchu at the beginning of the tefillah.
Question: What is the minhag in practice?
Answer: Behold, although we saw that it was ruled that the main halacha is like the view of the Rosh and not like the view of the Behag, even so, in practice the minhag was established to conduct oneself like the words of the Behag, as follows:
Maran the Mechaber wrote1, in the name of the minhag of some women: 'According to the Behag, since he lit the Shabbos candle, Shabbos has taken effect upon him and he is forbidden in melacha. And accordingly some women have the custom that after they have made the bracha and lit the candles, they throw to the ground the wick in their hand with which they lit, and they do not extinguish it'. However, the Rema there in the Hagah wrote this as a general minhag concerning the women who light: 'And the minhag is that the woman who lights accepts Shabbos with the lighting .. but the rest of the members of the household are permitted in melacha until Borchu'.
And so too wrote the Alter Rebbe2: 'The minhag is like the first view, that the woman who lights accepts Shabbos upon herself with this lighting, and therefore she should daven Mincha first; but the rest of the members of the household are permitted in melacha until Borchu'. And he also brought that: 'The women have the custom that after they have made the bracha and lit the candles, they throw to the ground the wick in their hand with which they lit the candles, and they do not extinguish it, for Shabbos has already taken effect upon them at the conclusion of the lighting'3.
But the Bach wrote4, brought by the Magen Avraham5: 'However, with men who light themselves, as is written in the Mordechai concerning those who go to learn outside their homes, that the Mahara"m ruled that they must light in their room because of shalom bayis, so that he should not stumble on wood or on a stone - with them there is no minhag, and the acceptance of Shabbos does not depend upon the lighting'.
And so too wrote the Alter Rebbe there: 'And all this is with a woman, but with a man who lights there is no minhag at all, and we leave it upon the essential law, that the acceptance of Shabbos does not depend upon the lighting of the candles but upon the saying of Borchu; and nevertheless it is good to stipulate l'chatchilah'.
Thus we have seen that although the halacha is like the Rosh, that the acceptance of Shabbos depends upon the tefillah, even so the women who light were accustomed to follow the words of the Behag, that they accept Shabbos with the lighting of the candles; but with men there is no such minhag.
Question: According to the Behag, is a woman permitted to light many candles, or, the moment she has lit the candles that she is obligated to light, has Shabbos taken effect upon her?
Answer: The Rashba6 raised a difficulty against the view of the Behag, who holds that the acceptance of Shabbos depends upon the lighting of the candle: 'It is evident that the lighting of the candle is not an acceptance, and logic dictates so, for if you do not say thus, then from the moment he lit the first candle he has accepted it and it would be forbidden for him to light a second candle, and it would turn out that it is forbidden to light two candles on erev Shabbos'. That is to say: if the acceptance of Shabbos depends upon the lighting of the candle, then how do we light more than one candle, for immediately after the lighting of the first candle Shabbos has already taken effect?
But the Beis Yosef7 wrote to resolve this: 'And all the candles that one lights in honor of Shabbos are considered as one and are therefore permitted; not so with the extinguishing of the wick with which they lit them'. That is to say: it is true that the acceptance of Shabbos takes effect with the lighting, but on condition that the lighting has been completed, for all the candles that the woman lights in honor of Shabbos are considered one mitzvah.
And so too wrote the Alter Rebbe there: 'But they may light many candles, for they are all one mitzvah of lighting, and the acceptance of Shabbos does not take effect until after the completion of the lighting'.
And the Gra"ch Naeh wrote8: 'And at times it happens that after she has lit all the candles one candle goes out. Now, if it went out because she did not light it properly, that is, that she did not wait until the fire took hold of most of the wick, it is reasonable that this is as though she had not lit it, and she is permitted to go back and light it. But if it was lit properly and on account of some cause it went out, it is forbidden for her to go back and light it after she has completed the lighting, even though she has not yet made the bracha; and one must warn the women about this'.
Thus in practice a woman's acceptance of Shabbos takes effect only at the conclusion of all the candles that she lights for the sake of the mitzvah of lighting. And if the last candle went out: if it is a case where she lit it well and afterwards it went out, she may not herself go back and light it; but if from the outset the fire did not take hold well, she may light it herself again, as long as she has not made the bracha.
Notes:
1 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 263 se'if 10 ↩
2 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 263 se'if 7 ↩
3 In se'if 8 too he wrote: 'And the minhag is that they make the bracha after the lighting, since they hold that if she were to make the bracha first she would have accepted Shabbos and would be forbidden to light'. And so too he wrote in Kuntres Acharon s"k 7, that so we rule regarding women ↩
4 OC siman 263 ↩
5 OC ibid. s"k 18 ↩
6 Shabbos 23b ↩
7 OC siman 263 ↩
8 Ketzos HaShulchan siman 74, Badei HaShulchan s"k 14 ↩
[6] (Halacha 465)
How one accepts Shabbos (3)
We learned in halacha no. 459 that the acceptance of Shabbos takes effect upon a person through the lighting of the candles (according to the view of the Behag, and in practice this is the custom among women, to be concerned for the view of the Behag) even if he did not explicitly accept Shabbos upon himself.
Question: At precisely which stage does Shabbos take effect — at the conclusion of the lighting or at the bracha?
Answer: In the poskim two views are brought in the view of the Behag regarding the time of the acceptance of Shabbos, which stem from their dispute in the approach of the Behag that was explained in halacha no. 454:
a) The Beis Yosef1 wrote: and these are the words of the Shibolei HaLeket (siman 59): there are people who light the candle with a wick, and after they have made the bracha and lit the candle they throw the wick to the ground; and the Behag too forbids lighting a Chanukah candle after the Shabbos candle. And R' Binyomin wondered, that if you say that the bracha is considered the acceptance of Shabbos, then it would be forbidden to light — end quote. And it appears that one can say that their view is that the lighting of the candle is the acceptance, in accordance with the words of the Behag, and all the candles that one lights in honor of Shabbos are considered as one and are therefore permitted; not so with the extinguishing of the wick with which they lit them.
And so too wrote the Shulchan Aruch2: 'According to the Behag, since he lit the Shabbos candle, Shabbos has taken effect upon him and he is forbidden in melacha. And accordingly some women have the custom that after they have made the bracha and lit the candles, they throw to the ground the wick in their hand with which they lit them, and they do not extinguish it'.
And so too wrote the Alter Rebbe3: 'There are those who say that since he lit the Shabbos candle, Shabbos has taken effect upon him and he is forbidden to perform melacha, unless he stipulated that he is not accepting Shabbos upon himself with this lighting. And accordingly the women have the custom that after they have made the bracha and lit the candles, they throw to the ground the wick in their hand with which they lit the candles, and they do not extinguish it, for Shabbos has already taken effect upon them at the conclusion of this lighting; but they may light many candles, for they are all one mitzvah of lighting, and the acceptance of Shabbos does not take effect until after the conclusion of the lighting'.
That is, their minhag was that they would make the bracha (as with the rest of the mitzvos) before the performance of the mitzvah — the lighting of the candles — and the entire acceptance of Shabbos (according to the view of the Behag) was at the time of the conclusion of the lighting. And immediately at the conclusion of the lighting of the last candle that was lit in honor of Shabbos, Shabbos takes effect, and therefore they wrote that one should not extinguish the wick with which they were lighting.
b) The Mahari Weil4 wrote: 'Some women have the custom that they light the candles and afterwards place their hands spread out facing the candles, and then they make the bracha, and afterwards they remove their hands. The reason they spread their hands is so that it should be prior to the performance, and they did not wish to make the bracha before the lighting, for if so they would have accepted Shabbos and would no longer be able to light'.
The Rema in Darkei Moshe5, and in the Shulchan Aruch6 in the Hagah, brought the minhag itself that is cited in the Mahari Weil, and the Magen Avraham7 added the reason that is in the Mahari Weil: 'For if she makes the bracha she has accepted Shabbos and is forbidden to light ..'.
And the Alter Rebbe too brought this8: 'And the minhag is that they make the bracha after the lighting, since they hold that if she were to make the bracha first she would have accepted Shabbos and would be forbidden to light; and even on Yom Tov they light first, so as not to divide one bracha, to recite it sometimes before the lighting and sometimes afterwards. And in order that the bracha should be prior to the performance, she does not derive benefit from the light until after the bracha — that is, she places her hand in front of the candle immediately after the lighting until after the conclusion of the bracha, and then she removes her hand and derives benefit from the light, and this is called prior to the performance'.
That is, according to this minhag the acceptance of Shabbos takes effect at the time of the bracha, and therefore one should make the bracha only after the lighting of the candles.
If so, we have seen that differing minhogim are brought in the poskim as to precisely when the women's acceptance of Shabbos takes effect — at the bracha or at the lighting of the candles.
And in practice we have seen that the Alter Rebbe brought both minhogim, and it appears that he took the stringent course according to both minhogim9, that is, that one should not make the bracha before the lighting of the candles, and likewise that one should not extinguish the wick or the match with which the last candle is lit. And so it appears in the Ketzos HaShulchan10.
Notes:
1 Siman 263 ↩
2 Siman 263 se'if 10 ↩
3 Ibid. se'if 7 ↩
4 In Chidushei Dinim VeHalachos siman 29 ↩
5 s"k 2 ↩
6 Se'if 5 ↩
7 s"k 12 ↩
8 In se'if 8 ↩
9 However, some have noted (see the words of R' A.A. in Kovetz Hearos U'Biurim, issue 835 p. 111) from the words of the Alter Rebbe in se'if 11, that it appears that the woman does not accept Shabbos with the lighting of the candles without the bracha, (and he noted that what the Gaon R' Chaim Naeh wrote in Badei HaShulchan s"k 14, that the words of the Alter Rebbe there are where she made a stipulation, do not fit with the language of the Alter Rebbe) and therefore he wrote that in practice according to the view of the Alter Rebbe the acceptance of Shabbos is only at the conclusion of the benefit from the candle after the spreading of the hands, and there is no need to be concerned about extinguishing the match before the bracha. [However, it may be said that the words of the Alter Rebbe in se'if 11 refer to a case of lighting candles where, as it were, their definition is not for the sake of lighting for Shabbos (rather the woman's intention is that over these candles she will afterwards spread her hands and make the bracha, and then they will be Shabbos candles, and she will derive benefit from them for Shabbos), and therefore the designation of Shabbos candles does not take effect upon them. And if she does not spread her hands it is not considered at all that she lit Shabbos candles, and this differs from one who lights with a stipulation, where the lighting itself is for the sake of Shabbos, only with the addition of a stipulation, and therefore in that case the designation of Shabbos candles does take effect upon them; and seemingly with this the question that he raises there is also resolved] ↩
10 Siman 74 s"k 14 ↩
[7] (Halacha 469)
How one accepts Shabbos (4)
We learned in halacha no. 459 that the acceptance of Shabbos takes effect upon the woman through the lighting of the candles (according to the view of the Behag by law, and in practice this is how the minhag was established among women) even when she did not explicitly accept Shabbos upon herself.
Question: May a woman [or a man] stipulate that despite these actions or words of hers Shabbos should not take effect upon her?
Answer: In the sefer Tashbetz1 he brought the words of his teacher the Mahara"m: 'And he says that when one lights the candle on erev Shabbos he may stipulate that they are not yet accepting Shabbos upon themselves until the shliach tzibbur begins to daven the tefillah of maariv'. And from the plain meaning of his words it is implied that although in principle the acceptance depends upon the lighting, the one who lights may stipulate that he is not accepting Shabbos upon himself. And so too wrote the Hagahos Maimoniyos2: 'The Mahara"m required and instituted that one stipulate before he lights that he is not accepting Shabbos until he removes from his hand the candle with which he lights, or until the tefillah of maariv; for if not, perhaps he is carrying it in a forbidden manner after he made the bracha over the Shabbos candle'. And see also the words of the Mordechai3: 'And he should have in mind not to accept Shabbos until after the lighting'.
However, the Tashbetz wrote4 [regarding the words of the Mahara"m above]: 'It appears that what we say, that when one lights the candle on erev Shabbos he may stipulate — that is specifically for the members of the household. But the woman herself who lights is forbidden to perform any melacha after she has lit, for since she made the bracha over the candle, there is no greater acceptance than this. And a stipulation is of no avail. And so it is in the Pesakim of Rabbeinu Yehuda'.
In the Shibolei HaLeket5 it appears that he means to say that there are people who are stringent in this way, and he explains it thus in the view of the Behag, and these are his words: '.. And even though he made the bracha, if he did not accept Shabbos upon himself until he prepares or lights all the candles in his house, he is not obligated in resting until he has prepared them all. There are people who light the candle with a wick, and after they have made the bracha and lit the candle they throw the wick to the ground. And the Behag too forbids lighting a Chanukah candle after the Shabbos candle, for since he made the bracha over the Shabbos candle he has already accepted Shabbos upon himself, and it is forbidden to light a Chanukah candle thereafter'.
And see also the words of the Mahari Weil6: 'Some women have the custom .. and they did not wish to make the bracha before the lighting, for if so they would have accepted Shabbos and would no longer be able to light'.
If so, we have seen that the Rishonim disagreed as to whether, according to the view of the Behag, one may stipulate and not accept Shabbos upon himself with the bracha and with the lighting of the candle7.
In practice the Mechaber wrote8: 'And there are those who say that if she stipulates before she lights that she is not accepting Shabbos until the chazan says Borchu, it is of avail. And there are those who say that it is of no avail for her'. And the Rema wrote in the Hagah: 'And the minhag is that the woman who lights accepts Shabbos with the lighting, unless she stipulated beforehand'.
The view of the Alter Rebbe will be brought below
Question: We saw that there are those who say that even according to the view of the Behag one may stipulate that he is not accepting Shabbos with the lighting of the candle and with the bracha. Must the stipulation be made verbally?
Answer: The Mordechai wrote there: 'And he should have in mind not to accept Shabbos until after the lighting'. And the Beis Yosef wrote9: 'And it is implied from his language that when it is so in his mind it suffices, even though he did not stipulate with his mouth'.
And the Rema there brought it in practice and wrote: 'And even a stipulation in the heart suffices'.
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe10: 'And even that woman, if she stipulated beforehand, even in her heart, that she is not accepting Shabbos with this lighting, this stipulation is of avail for her in a case of need; but not in a case of need one should not rely on the stipulation, since there are those who say that a stipulation is of no avail at all according to the view of those who say that the acceptance of Shabbos depends upon the lighting of the Shabbos candle .. And all this is with a woman; but with a man who lights there is no minhag at all, and we establish it according to the essential law, that the acceptance of Shabbos does not depend upon the lighting of the candles but upon the saying of Borchu; and nevertheless it is good to stipulate l'chatchilah'.
If so, we have learned that: 1) Women accept Shabbos with the lighting. 2) In practice, even if we hold like the Behag that one accepts Shabbos with the lighting, one may stipulate, and therefore it is worthwhile for men who light to be stringent and to stipulate. (But since there are those who disagree with the possibility of stipulating, therefore women who conduct themselves like the Behag should make the stipulation only in a case of need11). 3) A stipulation is of avail in thought, and one need not stipulate with his mouth.
It is important to clarify: that even in a case where the woman stipulates that she is not accepting Shabbos with this lighting, there is a need for her husband to accept Shabbos with this lighting [and likewise the reverse, when the husband lights and makes a stipulation, his wife must accept Shabbos].
Notes:
1 Siman 8 ↩
2 Hilchos Shabbos perek 5 ↩
3 Shabbos perek 2 remez 293 ↩
4 Siman 14. And so too wrote the Kolbo siman 31 in the name of Rabbeinu Peretz ↩
5 Inyan Shabbos siman 59 ↩
6 Chidushei Dinin VeHalachos siman 29 ↩
7 To note that the source of the view that a stipulation is of no avail is in the words of the poskim regarding the bracha (Mahari Weil), or regarding the lighting that follows the bracha (Shibolei HaLeket, Tashbetz), that at the conclusion of the lighting which was preceded by the bracha he has accepted, and a stipulation will not be of avail. But we have not found explicitly that for those who have the custom to make the bracha after the lighting the stipulation is of no avail regarding the lighting. (And although regarding the minhag that they accept Shabbos at the conclusion of the lighting (as explained in halacha 465), it is customary that even those who make the bracha after the lighting accept Shabbos at the conclusion of the lighting — that is because (as explained in halacha 454) there are among the Rishonim who explained the words of the Behag that the lighting itself is the acceptance of Shabbos (for it is the last melacha); but regarding the stipulation not being of avail we have not found, and we have seen only the reason concerning the bracha, 'for since she made the bracha over the candle there is no greater acceptance than this'. And it still requires further study ↩
8 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 263 se'if 10 ↩
9 Siman 263 ↩
10 OC siman 263 se'if 7 ↩
11 But it is simple that regarding men, since we do not hold like the Behag (and that which they are stringent to stipulate is out of concern for the Mahara"m, who wrote so according to his view like the Behag), therefore they may stipulate even without a need ↩
[8] (Halacha 473)
How one accepts Shabbos (5)
We learned1 that in a time of need a woman may stipulate that she is not accepting Shabbos with the lighting of the candles.
Question: Is there a need for the husband to accept Shabbos in proximity to the woman's lighting of the candles?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Shabbos2 says regarding the lighting of the candles: 'We have learned, provided that he does not light early and does not light late'.
And Rashi wrote: 'That he should not light early — for it would not be recognizable that it is for Shabbos'.
However, in the Gemara in Maseches Brochos3 it is related that Rav would accept Shabbos early, and the Rishonim explained that since he accepted Shabbos immediately this is not lighting early, as Tosafos4 wrote there: 'This is astonishing, for we say in perek Bameh Madlikin, provided that he does not light early and does not light late? And one may say that there it is where he does not accept Shabbos upon himself immediately, but here it is speaking where he accepts Shabbos upon himself immediately, and therefore it is not lighting early'.
And so too wrote the Rosh5: 'And he would light the candle [before he davened] and accept Shabbos upon himself while it was still day. And that which we say in perek Bameh Madlikin regarding the lighting of the candle, provided that he does not light early and provided that he does not light late — this is not lighting early, since he would accept Shabbos upon himself at that same time, for one may accept Shabbos upon himself while it is still day, provided that it is from plag hamincha and onward.
And in practice the Mechaber6 and the Alter Rebbe7 wrote: 'He should not be early, to hasten to light it while it is still broad daylight, since then it is not recognizable that he is lighting it in honor of Shabbos; and he should also not be late. And if he wishes to light the candle while it is still broad daylight and to accept Shabbos upon himself at that same time, close to the lighting, he is permitted, for since he accepts Shabbos upon himself forthwith this is not lighting early — provided that it is from plag hamincha and onward, which is an hour and a quarter in seasonal hours before nightfall'.
If so, we have seen that there is a need to accept Shabbos in proximity to the lighting of the candles
Question: Is this law, that one must light the candle in proximity to the acceptance of Shabbos, only l'chatchilah, or also bedieved where he has already lit?
Answer: Tosafos wrote8: 'And further it appears to Rabbeinu Tam that if the candle was already lit and standing, he must extinguish it and light it again, as that elder said to him, provided that he does not light early and provided that he does not light late'. And so too wrote the Rosh9, and the Tur10 brought it.
And so too wrote the Rema there in the Hagah: 'And if the candle was lit while it was still broad daylight, he should extinguish it and light it again for the need of Shabbos'.
However, there are those who explain the words of Tosafos, that there is a need to light again only when the lighting was not for the need of Shabbos, but when he lit for the need of Shabbos there is no need. As Rabbi Akiva Eiger wrote on the Rema there: 'The candle is lit while it is still day. That is, that it was lit for another purpose; since the lighting was not for Shabbos, he must go back and extinguish it and light it again for the need of Shabbos. But if the lighting was for the need of Shabbos, only that he lit while it was still broad daylight, he need not extinguish it; rather, l'chatchilah he should not light so long beforehand, for it is not recognizable that he is lighting it in honor of Shabbos, but bedieved it is fine. And that which Tosafos wrote, as it was taught, provided that he does not light early — that is, that from this it is implied that the mitzvah is not merely that he should have a lit candle on Shabbos, but that the mitzvah of the lighting itself should be for the need of Shabbos; and l'chatchilah it is fitting that it be recognizable that the lighting is in honor of Shabbos. And according to this everything depends on whether the lighting is for the need of Shabbos or not. And the language of the Rema, "while it was still broad daylight", is not precise, and in Tosafos and the Tur they did not mention the word "broad"'.
But the approach of the Alter Rebbe there and in se'if 11 is that even if he lit for the need of Shabbos but did not accept Shabbos in proximity, he must extinguish it and light again, and these are his words: 'And if he lit the candle while it was still broad daylight and did not accept Shabbos upon himself immediately, he must extinguish it and light it again for the need of Shabbos, so that the lighting itself should be recognizable as being in honor of Shabbos'.
If so, we have seen that according to the view of the Alter Rebbe, even if they lit the candles for the need of Shabbos but did not accept Shabbos in proximity, there is a need to extinguish and to light again.
Next week we will learn what is called "in proximity".
Notes:
1 In halacha 469 ↩
2 23b ↩
3 27a ↩
4 D"h d'Rav tzli shel Shabbos b'erev Shabbos ↩
5 Brochos perek 4 siman 6 ↩
6 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 263 se'if 4 ↩
7 Ibid. se'if 6 ↩
8 Shabbos 25b ↩
9 Perek 2 se'if 18 ↩
10 OC siman 263 ↩
[9] (Halacha 479)
How one accepts Shabbos (6)
We learned that there is a need to accept Shabbos close to the lighting of the candles.
Question: Is this law, that one must accept Shabbos at the time of the lighting of the candles, only when one lights at a distance from Shabbos (such as immediately after plag hamincha), or also in a case where one lights the candles from the outset in proximity to Shabbos?
Answer: Several of the Acharonim wrote1 that the words of the Gemara and the Rishonim above, that one must accept Shabbos immediately after the lighting of the candles so that it should be recognizable that it is for the need of Shabbos, apply only when one lights while it is still broad daylight; but when one lights at a time fit for tosefes Shabbos, one need not accept Shabbos with the lighting. As is written in the Derech HaChaim2: 'And if the woman needs to go to tevilah .. she may light within the measure of this tosefes3 and make the bracha and stipulate that she is not accepting Shabbos with the lighting .. And if she wishes to light earlier, from plag hamincha and onward, she may light, provided that she accepts Shabbos at once, and then she cannot stipulate that she is not accepting Shabbos with the lighting..'.
If so, it appears from their words: a) that if one lights at a time fit for tosefes, one may stipulate and there is no need to accept Shabbos at once. b) But when one lights from plag hamincha until the time fit for tosefes Shabbos, one must accept Shabbos at once with the lighting, and there is no possibility of stipulating and accepting Shabbos a few minutes afterwards.
But the Alter Rebbe disagrees on these two points and wrote: a. Regarding a woman who lights close to Shabbos, that the husband must accept Shabbos, as he wrote in se'if 11: '(then she should light and make the bracha and stipulate that she is not accepting Shabbos with this lighting. And nevertheless she should not make this stipulation unless the husband will accept Shabbos upon himself immediately, close to her lighting; for since she is not accepting forthwith after her lighting, as she needs to tarry a long while in her chafifah or in her going to the chuppah, if so, if the husband too will not accept forthwith, he will have to extinguish the candle and light it again close to the acceptance of Shabbos, as was explained above, and it turns out that she made a bracha in vain)'.
b. When one lights while it is still broad daylight, the Alter Rebbe wrote that it suffices to accept close to it / forthwith, and he did not write "at once". As he wrote in se'if 6: 'And if he wishes to light the candle while it is still broad daylight and to accept Shabbos upon himself at that same time, close to the lighting, he is permitted, for since he accepts Shabbos upon himself forthwith this is not lighting early'. And he explained in the Kuntres Acharon s"k 2: 'And that which the Shulchan Aruch wrote "immediately" does not specifically mean at once and instantly, but rather forthwith'.
And so too wrote the Tehillah LeDovid4 with regard to the two points above: a) 'For in the Mechaber here it is implied explicitly that even from the beginning of shkiah one must accept Shabbos immediately, and this too is called "while it is still broad daylight", just as from plag hamincha, which is a short time before the beginning of shkiah, is called "while it is still broad daylight"'. b) 'And in se'if 10 in the Hagah it is implied that from plag hamincha, even before the beginning of shkiah, a stipulation is of avail, and the correct view is as the Rav [=the Alter Rebbe] of blessed memory wrote, that even though a stipulation is of avail, after this one must accept Shabbos immediately .. and see the Kuntres Acharon s"k 2, that this "immediately" does not specifically mean..'.
★ ★ ★
Question: In a case where the entire community lights at a fixed time, such as in a place where they are accustomed to light according to the time fixed in the calendars, may one light at this time and stipulate that he is not accepting Shabbos, even though nobody accepts Shabbos in proximity to the lighting?
Answer: The Minchas Yitzchok wrote5: 'However, in this it appears with regard to the minhag in Yerushalayim — that the whole city lights candles forty minutes before shkiah .. since the reason is explained in the Shulchan Aruch that he should not light early, for then it is not recognizable that he is lighting it in honor of Shabbos, as is explained there .. if so, since the whole city lights then, it is indeed recognizable that he lit in honor of Shabbos, even though he did not accept Shabbos with the lighting'. And according to his approach this is of avail even before plag hamincha.
But seemingly according to the words of the Alter Rebbe: a. Who wrote that the lighting itself must be recognizable as being in honor of Shabbos6, it appears that even if the whole community accepts, the lighting itself is not recognizable as being in honor of Shabbos when there is no acceptance of Shabbos forthwith after it. And b. The Alter Rebbe7 brings and proves what the definition of the time "forthwith" is from the words of the Gemara8, that they would blow the shofar and thus everyone knew that this was the time of candle lighting. If so, it is proven that even when they would blow to light and everyone lit together, one must accept Shabbos forthwith9.
If so, according to the view of the Alter Rebbe, in every case in which one lights Shabbos candles one must accept Shabbos forthwith, even if it is already at a time close to Shabbos, or if the entire community lights at a fixed time.
In the next halacha we will discuss what the time is that is considered accepting Shabbos in proximity to the lighting — 'forthwith'.
Notes:
1 Mishnah Berurah siman 263 s"k 15, and Biur Halacha d"h b'od hayom gadol, and Sha'ar HaTziyun s"k 31. However, according to the view of the Mishnah Berurah the need to accept Shabbos with the lighting of the candles, when speaking of candles for the need of Shabbos, is only a law l'chatchilah — see s"k 20, and not like the Derech HaChaim below. And see Ravid HaShulchan siman 263 os 6 ↩
2 Siman 50 os 2. See in the Tehillah LeDovid siman 263 os 4 ↩
3 According to his words it is approximately 58 minutes before the quarter of an hour that precedes tzeis hakochavim of Rabbeinu Tam ↩
4 Cited in note 2 ↩
5 Shu"t vol. 9 siman 20. And see also Shu"t Lechem Shlomo, second edition, OC siman 26 os 4. Orchos Shabbos (Gelber) vol. 3 perek 27 din 14 note 44 ↩
6 Se'if 6 ↩
7 Kuntres Acharon 2 ↩
8 Shabbos 35b ↩
9 See also what is written in Knishta D'Bei Rav siman 263 Kuntres Acharon 2, os 4 ↩
[10] (Halacha 485)
How one accepts Shabbos (7)
In the previous halacha we learned that one must accept Shabbos in proximity to the lighting of the candles, and that the Alter Rebbe explained that the intention is not at once and instantly, but rather it suffices that one accepts Shabbos forthwith after the lighting.
Question: What is the measure that is called "forthwith" — that is, how long after the woman's lighting of the candles must she accept Shabbos, or her husband in a case where the woman cannot accept Shabbos upon herself with her lighting (and she makes a stipulation at the lighting about this)?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Shabbos1 says: 'The Rabbis taught: six blasts are blown on erev Shabbos, and the third is to light the candle .. and he waits the time it takes to roast a small fish or to stick bread onto the oven, and he blows a tekiah and a teruah and rests'.
We see in the words of the Gemara that they lit the candles and only after a measure of time of roasting a small fish did they rest. And from here we learn: a) That they did not accept Shabbos immediately with the lighting2, but rather they were able to wait a little3. b) That the measure of time that one may wait is the time it takes to roast a small fish.
And accordingly the Alter Rebbe wrote4: '.. one must accept Shabbos immediately, as Tosafos and the Rosh wrote. And even though he waits the time it takes to roast a small fish, that which the Shulchan Aruch wrote "immediately" does not specifically mean at once and instantly, but rather forthwith..'5.
★ ★ ★
Question: What is the measure of roasting a small fish?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Chullin6 says: 'For Shmuel said: that which is salted is like that which is boiling hot .. from this it is implied that he is speaking of the heat of roasting'.
And the Behag wrote7 regarding melichah, that what they said, 'that which is salted is like that which is boiling hot', means that the measure of melichah is equal to the measure of roasting; and this measure the Rambam wrote8 is the time of walking a mil; and the Beis Yosef explained9 that this is the measure required for a large piece of meat (and only because of lo plug did they require this measure also for the melichah of a small piece). And the measure of a mil is 18 minutes10, and if so the measure of roasting a small fish is less than that.
And the Alter Rebbe explained there: 'Nevertheless, this measure is much less than a quarter of an hour, as is proven from the measure of melichah, which is like the measure of roasting even for a large piece'.
If so, we have seen that the Alter Rebbe writes that if the measure of roasting a large piece of meat is the measure of a mil, then the roasting of a small fish is much less than 15 minutes, and this is the time of "forthwith" within which one must accept Shabbos after the lighting of the candles.
★ ★ ★
Question: How many minutes is this?
Answer: It is written in Shu"t Eretz Tzvi11: 'It is implied that in any case it is an eighth of an hour (=7.5 minutes) or more [for if not, the language above, "much less than a quarter of an hour", would not be applicable]'. And in similar fashion it is written in the Tzitz Eliezer12: 'From eight to ten minutes'.
And the Gaon R' Chaim Naeh13 wrote: 'And nevertheless she must accept Shabbos afterwards immediately, that is, approximately ten minutes after the lighting, as is explained in the Kuntres Acharon os 2'.
If so, we have seen that the measure of time within which one must accept Shabbos after the lighting of the candles is approximately 10 minutes14.
Notes:
1 35b ↩
2 And indeed the Rishonim (see the Ramban and others, Shabbos 23b) brought this Gemara to prove not like the words of the Behag, who holds (see halacha no. 454) that one accepts Shabbos immediately with the lighting of the candles. [However, there are those who explained in the words of the Gemara (see the Ran on the Rif there) that this measure is not for the one who lights himself, who is forbidden according to the Behag immediately. But the Alter Rebbe proved from the plain meaning of the words of the Gemara and of the Rishonim who brought this as a proof against the Behag.] If so, they learned from this that there is no need to accept Shabbos immediately with the lighting, but it suffices that it be within the range of "forthwith", as below. And see Tehillah LeDovid os 4, Knishta D'Bei Rav p. 505, Iyunim U'Biurim os 4 ↩
3 But see the Mahara"m Shik (Brochos 27a), that according to the view of the Derech HaChaim (which was explained in halacha no. 479), that close to Shabbos there is no need to accept Shabbos immediately with the lighting — if so, there is no proof from this Gemara ↩
4 Siman 263 in the Kuntres Acharon s"k 2 ↩
5 The Alter Rebbe in this Kuntres Acharon explains the words of the Magen Avraham regarding a woman who has no possibility of accepting Shabbos with the lighting of the candles, for the Magen Avraham wrote (siman 263 s"k 11): 'מהר"ש wrote in the name of the Mahara"m, who holds that when there is a chuppah on erev Shabbos and they delay it until after sunset, and the woman does not wish to accept Shabbos before the chuppah, then she should light the candle without a bracha before the chuppah, and afterwards, in the darkness, she should spread her hands over the candles and make the bracha; or she should tell a non-Jew to light after the chuppah and she will make the bracha ..'. And the commentators noted (Pri Megadim in Eishel Avraham, R' Akiva Eiger s"k 4) why the Magen Avraham did not propose here that the woman make a stipulation at the time of the lighting of the candles that she is not accepting Shabbos upon herself with the lighting, as is explained in the Mechaber and in the Rema (siman 263 se'if 10) and in the Magen Avraham himself (in s"k 20). And the Alter Rebbe explained (OC siman 263 in the Kuntres Acharon s"k 2): 'The Magen Avraham omitted this remedy intentionally, because one must accept Shabbos immediately .. nevertheless this measure is much less than a quarter of an hour .. and here she tarries at the chuppah a long while'. That is, the Alter Rebbe explains that the Magen Avraham intentionally omitted here the possibility of making a stipulation, since even when one makes a stipulation one must accept Shabbos in proximity of time to the lighting — forthwith — and here it is speaking of a case where the woman cannot accept Shabbos forthwith, because she is delayed a long while ↩
6 97b ↩
7 Hilchos Dam siman 65. Brought in Tosafos Chullin 112a d"h hanei milei ↩
8 Hilchos Ma'achalos Assuros perek 6 halacha 10, and see in the Magid Mishneh there. And so too is written in Shulchan Aruch YD siman 69 se'if 6 ↩
9 YD siman 69 ↩
10 From the plain meaning of the words of the Alter Rebbe here it appears that he held that the measure of a mil is 18 minutes, which is why he wrote that the roasting of a small fish is much less than a quarter of an hour. But in siman 459 se'if 10, and in the Siddur, Seder Hachnosas Shabbos, he ruled that it is 24 minutes. And see also She'eris Yehudah YD siman 69 s"k 35 ↩
11 Siman 113 in the note ↩
12 Vol. 11 siman 21 ↩
13 Ketzos HaShulchan siman 74 in the Badei HaShulchan s"k 17 ↩
14 And see also Biur Halacha siman 672 d"h v'lo makdimim ↩
[11] (Halacha 490)
The study of the halacha is dedicated in the merit of Rabbi A.Ch.D. שי' Goldschmid for his birthday, for length of days and good years, healthy, joyous and happy.
How one accepts Shabbos (8)
We learned in halacha no. 485 that one must accept Shabbos in proximity — forthwith — to the lighting of the candles, that is, within a range of up to about ten minutes from the lighting.
Question: A woman who lit for Shabbos and made a stipulation that she is not accepting Shabbos — whose acceptance of Shabbos in her stead is of avail: the master of the house, or any of the members of the household?
Answer: Several of the poskim wrote that each of the members of the household above the age of mitzvos may accept Shabbos upon himself, and it need not specifically be the husband, as is written in Shu"t Kinyan Torah1: 'And in this it is reasonable, like the words of his honor, that the same applies if one of the adult members of the household, upon whom the mitzvah of lighting Shabbos candles also rests, accepts Shabbos upon himself with this lighting, it suffices'. And so too is written in Shu"t Chayei HaLevi2 and in Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchoso3.
However, there is room to discuss in the approach of the Alter Rebbe whether according to his approach too it is of avail for one of the members of the household to accept, or whether it must specifically be the husband?
For behold, the Alter Rebbe wrote4 regarding a case where the woman makes a stipulation: 'And nevertheless she should not make this stipulation unless the husband will accept Shabbos upon himself immediately, close to her lighting'.
And there in the Kuntres Acharon5 he wrote: 'For certainly the woman is only the agent of the husband, as the Olas Shabbos wrote in se'if 3, and so it is by law, for the primary obligation of establishing peace in the home rests upon him, for he is the master of the house; and furthermore, she is included among the members of his household — see what is written below. If so, if he accepts Shabbos immediately, he is discharged through her lighting, and she did not make a bracha in vain, even though she would not have been discharged with this lighting if she were obligated in it with an obligation of her own. For precisely such a case we find with one who makes a bracha over the shofar and goes on his way — see the Beis Yosef siman 585'.
And they wrote to infer from his words6: 'The reason that the husband's acceptance is of avail in place of the woman's is that the primary obligation of the lighting of the candles is upon the husband, who is the master of the house (upon whom the primary obligation of establishing peace in the home rests), and the woman is only his agent. And furthermore, she is included among the members of his household who are discharged with his candle (as is explained in the Kuntres Acharon here s"k 5), and she is not obligated in her own right; and therefore the husband's acceptance is properly of avail — according to the Kuntres Acharon here s"k 2. And it is understood that this reason applies only to the acceptance of Shabbos of the husband, but not to the acceptance of Shabbos of the rest of the members of the household'.
And so too is written in Shu"t Chayei HaLevi7: 'Indeed, the aforementioned Rav noted in this that from the words of the Shulchan Aruch (in the Kuntres Acharon os 2) it is implied that specifically the husband must accept Shabbos, for he wrote the reason that the acceptance of Shabbos of the husband suffices because the woman is only the agent of the husband, see there; and it requires further study'.
If so, we have seen that many of the poskim8 wrote in the view of the Alter Rebbe that his words 'that the husband will accept upon himself' are precise, that only the acceptance of Shabbos of the husband after the woman's lighting of the candles can be considered as having accepted Shabbos forthwith to the lighting, and the acceptance of someone else among the members of the household will not be of avail.
Notes:
1 Vol. 4 siman 25 ↩
2 Vol. 3 siman 19 os 13. And see also in vol. 1 siman 31 os 6 ↩
3 Vol. 2 perek 43 se'if 24 ↩
4 In siman 263 se'if 11 ↩
5 s"k 2 ↩
6 Kitzur Halachos from the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe p. 119 note 55; and so ruled the Gaon R' Y. Farkash in Taharah Kehalacha vol. 1, perek 18 p. 345 halacha 24 and note 64. And so too is written in Knishta D'Bei Rav p. 508 note 11 ↩
7 (Wosner) vol. 3, 19, 13 ↩
8 But see in Shu"t Nishmas Shabbos (Harfenes) vol. 1 siman 362, who was in doubt in the view of the Alter Rebbe, and wrote that if there is an obligation upon the rest of the members of the household and they are discharged with this candle, it is possible that they may accept Shabbos. And it still requires further study. But it is simple that certainly it is of no avail for his young daughter to accept Shabbos at the time of the lighting, since she is not obligated in mitzvos at all, and is only in the category of chinuch; therefore her acceptance is not called a complete acceptance. And see in Halichos HaShabbos p. 552, Tosefes Biur note 10, who understood in the view of the Alter Rebbe that the acceptance of the rest of the members of the household is indeed of avail ↩
[13] (Halacha 499)
How one accepts Shabbos (10)
We learned in halacha no. 494 that l'chatchilah a woman should daven Mincha before lighting the candles.
Question: What is the law when a woman forgot to daven Mincha and remembered only after the lighting of the candles?
Answer: In this matter we find a dispute among the Acharonim, [and below it will be explained that it is possible that this dispute depends on the manner in which we regard the woman's acceptance of Shabbos with the lighting of the candles: whether it is similar to a) the acceptance of Shabbos through the saying of Barchu; or b) the acceptance of Shabbos through being drawn after the tzibbur; or c) the acceptance of tosefes Shabbos].
a. Some have written that she may not daven Mincha, and therefore she should daven maariv twice.
And their reason is that since the law is that when a person answered Barchu of the maariv tefillah of Shabbos he has accepted upon himself the essence of Shabbos, and he may not daven Mincha, as the Mechaber wrote1: 'One who delayed davening Mincha on erev Shabbos until the congregation accepted Shabbos .. but if he answered and accepted Shabbos with them, he may not daven a weekday tefillah, but rather he should daven maariv twice'. And so too wrote the Alter Rebbe2: 'One who delayed davening Mincha on erev Shabbos until the congregation accepted Shabbos, that is to say that they said Barchu .. and that is where he did not answer with them after Barchu; but if he answered, he has accepted Shabbos upon himself and it is forbidden for him to daven the weekday Mincha, but rather he should daven maariv twice, like the law of one who erred and did not daven Mincha on erev Shabbos, which is explained in siman 108'.
So too, in their view, after the woman has lit the candles she has accepted upon herself the essence of Shabbos and she may no longer daven Mincha.
And so too wrote the Machatzis HaShekel3 on the words of the Magen Avraham4, who wrote and she should daven Mincha first. 'For if she lights first she has already accepted Shabbos, and how can she daven the weekday Mincha, and she would need to daven maariv twice, as is written in se'if 15'. And so too wrote the Pri Megadim5.
And so too wrote the Eishel Avraham (Butchatch)6: 'She who lights. [If] she accepts upon herself the holy Shabbos with the lighting of the candles and she remembered that she had not davened Mincha, it appears that she should daven the tashlumin of Mincha after maariv'. And so too wrote the Tehillah LeDovid7. And so too wrote the Mishnah Berurah8.
And so ruled the Gra"ch Naeh9: 'The woman who lights accepts Shabbos upon herself with this lighting, and therefore she should daven Mincha first (and if she did not daven, she davens maariv twice)'. And he explained10: 'And the acceptance of Shabbos that the woman accepts with the lighting of the candles is an acceptance of the essence of the day, for indeed she is forbidden to daven Mincha afterward; and if it were only an acceptance of tosefes Shabbos, which is not more stringent than bein hashmashos, she would have been permitted to daven Mincha afterward just as during bein hashmashos, and the tefillah of Mincha is lighter than shvusin'.
[b. On the other hand, it is possible to explain11 that even after the woman has lit the candles she may daven Mincha, since her acceptance of Shabbos is similar to the acceptance of Shabbos that is drawn from the acceptance of the tzibbur [for although he is forbidden in shvus, as is explained in siman 261 se'if 3, he may daven Mincha], as the Mechaber wrote there: 'One who delayed davening Mincha on erev Shabbos until the congregation accepted Shabbos should not daven Mincha in that beis haknesses, but rather he should go outside of that beis haknesses and daven a weekday tefillah'. And so too wrote the Alter Rebbe there: 'One who delayed davening Mincha on erev Shabbos until the congregation accepted Shabbos, that is to say that they said Barchu, should not daven Mincha in that beis haknesses at the time that the congregation is davening maariv, for since the congregation has sanctified the day he should not make it a weekday in their presence; but rather he should go outside the beis haknesses and daven there the weekday Mincha ..'.
And see also in the Pri Megadim12: 'And in se'if 12, that an individual is drawn after the majority, with regard to melacha; but as for tefillah, so long as he did not answer Barchu with them, he davens the weekday Mincha outside the beis haknesses'].
c. And moreover, there are those who hold13 that the woman, with the lighting of the candles, accepts upon herself only the law of tosefes Shabbos, and therefore according to their view she may certainly daven Mincha, for she is permitted even in shvusin, and all the more so may she daven Mincha, which is lighter than shvus.
If so, we have seen that the poskim are divided as to whether a woman may daven Mincha after she has already lit the Shabbos candles and noticed that she had not davened; and in practice many of the Chabad rabbonim14 held that she may daven Mincha.
Notes:
1 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 263 se'if 15 ↩
2 Ibid. se'if 23 ↩
3 OC ibid. s"k 19 ↩
4 However, some have explained (Shu"t Eretz Tzvi siman 60. And see also Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok vol. 9 siman 20) the words of the Magen Avraham, who wrote: 'and she should daven Mincha first', and likewise the wording of the Alter Rebbe, that this is speaking only with regard to l'chatchilah ↩
5 Ibid. in the Eishel Avraham s"k 19 ↩
6 Ibid. in siman 263 ↩
7 S.k. 8 ↩
8 Siman 263 ibid. s"k 43 ↩
9 In Ketzos HaShulchan siman 74 halacha 5 ↩
10 Siman 76 os 11 ↩
11 And to note from the words of the Gra"ch Naeh ibid., even though in practice he understood like the first approach ↩
12 Ibid. in the A"A s"k 28 ↩
13 See halacha no. 494 in note 4 ↩
14 So ruled the Grm"sh Ashkenazi z"l. And so too is written in Hilchesa K'Rav, 5773 edition, p. 32. And see in Asra D'Rav 2134. And see also in the sources cited in note 4 ↩
From the 'Shoneh Halacha' project — a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha — Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp groupLighting Yom Tov candles
[14] (halacha 518)
In halacha number 465 we learned that the poskim were concerned for the view that a woman accepts Shabbos at the time of the bracha, and therefore she recites the bracha only after lighting the candles.
Question: What is the law regarding the lighting of Yom Tov candles? Since it is permitted to light a fire on Yom Tov, does the woman need to recite the bracha before lighting?
Answer: Rav Yosef wrote in the introduction to 'Derishah u'Perishah' — Yoreh De'ah, of his father Rabbi Yehoshua Volk Katz, concerning his mother the Rebbetzin Beila: 'Behold and see what the women have mistakenly sensed in their lighting of the candles on Yom Tov, and their error .. in that they are accustomed to light the Yom Tov candles like those of Shabbos, that is, they first light the candles and afterwards place their hands before the candles and recite the bracha over the candles, and afterwards remove their hands, all like the Shabbos candles .. And the principle that emerges from this is: since the one who lights himself accepts Shabbos with the bracha over the candles, it follows that if he were to recite the bracha first — as it ought to be, that the bracha precede the act — it would then be forbidden to light the candles. Therefore this minhag developed, that they first light and place their hands before the candles and recite the bracha, and afterwards remove their hands, for in this way it is called "preceding the act." This is fine regarding the lighting of the Shabbos candles, where after the bracha further lighting is forbidden, but on Yom Tov, when it is permitted to light the candles on Yom Tov itself, it is better that we perform the bracha over the candles properly, that the bracha precede the act, and that the Yom Tov candles be lit like the Chanukah candles — to recite the bracha first and afterwards light the candles one after another'.
That is, according to his view the minhag of every Shabbos is by default, since one ought to recite the bracha before lighting so that it precede the act, and only because they were concerned for the views that the bracha itself constitutes the acceptance of Shabbos, therefore there is no choice but to recite the bracha afterwards; but on Yom Tov, when it is possible to light the candles after the bracha, the law reverts to its essence and one must recite the bracha before lighting.
But the Magen Avraham1 disagreed, and wrote: 'After the lighting. For if she recites the bracha she accepts Shabbos and is forbidden to light, and if so, on Yom Tov she should recite the bracha and afterwards light — so it is written at the end of the Derishah on Even ha'Ezer in the name of his mother. But there is no wisdom in a woman2 etc.3 for the Sages did not distinguish, as is written in siman 158, see there. And so wrote Tosafos in Pesachim 7b4'.
If so, according to the view of the Magen Avraham, just as the Sages did not distinguish in their enactment regarding the bracha of washing the hands, and enacted that one always recite the bracha after the washing — as Tosafos wrote regarding immersion — so too the Sages did not distinguish regarding the time of the bracha over the lighting of the candles, and one always recites the bracha after the lighting.
But the Dagul me'Revavah there justified the minhag of the Rebbetzin Beila, and these are his words: 'And in my humble opinion the law is with the mother of the author of the Hagahos Derishah, that on Yom Tov she should recite the bracha and afterwards light. And as for the proof that the Magen Avraham brought .. in my humble opinion the case is not comparable, for there in siman 158, where one always recites the bracha after the washing — because of the washing that follows leaving the lavatory — there the text of the washing bracha is the same. And likewise the words of Tosafos in Pesachim, that one recites the bracha after immersing in all immersions because of the immersion of a convert — there too the text of the bracha is the same, in the immersion of a convert "on the immersion," like all the rest of those obligated in immersion, and therefore, because of "do not distinguish," they did not differentiate. But the bracha of lighting — the text of the bracha for lighting the Shabbos candle is not the same as the text of the bracha for the Yom Tov candle: over the Shabbos candle one recites the bracha "to light the candle of Shabbos" .. and over the Yom Tov candle the text of the bracha is "to light the candle of Yom Tov" .. and "do not distinguish" does not apply. And according to the words of the Magen Avraham one would have to say "do not distinguish" applies to every bracha of lighting; if so, it is difficult — also regarding the lighting of the Chanukah candle she should recite the bracha after she has lit, because of "do not distinguish," and this is certainly not so .. Rather, certainly, since the text is "to light the candle of Chanukah," and for Shabbos the text is "to light the candle of Shabbos," "do not distinguish" does not apply; if so, the same law applies that on Yom Tov too "do not distinguish" does not apply. And so it appears to me to rule, like the wife of the Gaon, author of the Derishah, and she is a woman whose heart lifted her up in wisdom'.
The Chasam Sofer there wrote that the Rebbetzin herself explained this: 'And one who examines the matter within will see that she herself sensed this, and wrote that, behold, in the miracle of Chanukah we recite the bracha preceding the act; if so, behold we see that with regard to the bracha of lighting the Rabbanan differ, and it is not comparable to immersion etc., where "do not distinguish" applies ..'.
Also the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger there commented on the Magen Avraham: '.. he holds essentially like the poskim that a stipulation is effective, except that when there is no need we are concerned for the poskim who hold that a stipulation is not effective, and for that reason we recite the bracha after lighting, to be concerned and stringent for those poskim, as the Magen Avraham wrote in seif katan 20; and if so, it is not appropriate to say "the Sages did not distinguish," for the Sages enacted nothing on Shabbos, since by the letter of the law on Shabbos too one recites the bracha first, and analyze this well'.
And in practice, like the words of the Rebbetzin Beila, that on Yom Tov one should recite the bracha before the lighting, the Chida also ruled: 'In this matter, where there are several lines of reasoning and we have not found any posek among the Rishonim who said [to recite the bracha after lighting on Yom Tov], it is better to recite the bracha on Yom Tov before lighting'. And see in the Sha'arei Teshuvah5, and in the Mishnah Berurah6.
But in the Siddur Derech ha'Chaim7, and in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch8 they ruled like the Magen Avraham.
And so ruled the Alter Rebbe9, and these are his words: 'And even on Yom Tov one lights first, so as not to distinguish within one bracha — reciting it sometimes before lighting and sometimes afterwards'10.
If so, according to our minhag, on Yom Tov too we recite the bracha after lighting the candles, just as on every Shabbos
--------------
Notes:
1 OC siman 263, s"k 12 ↩
2 Yoma 66b ↩
3 And regarding the words of the Magen Avraham: 'But there is no wisdom in a woman, etc.,' the Chida understood that he is speaking about the Rebbetzin Beila, and wrote (Shem HaGedolim, Maareches Gedolim, os 6 [7], Mahara"r Volk): 'And Mahara"r Yuzpa wrote there that his mother the Rebbetzin innovated two novel rulings, and the Rav, the Magen Avraham, wrote about it that there is no wisdom in a woman except with the spindle, but we in our humility wrote in his place that they are two [rulings], each in accordance with its halacha. And now we live not by her word alone, but by the wisdom of a man, Mahara"r Yuzpa, a man among men, and by his wisdom he follows according to the law and the truth.' But the Machatzis HaShekel wrote: 'But there is no wisdom in a woman -- that is to say, all the women did not know how to distinguish between Shabbos and Yom Tov, and if it were said that on Yom Tov she should recite the bracha and afterwards light, she would do so also on Shabbos.' ↩
4 d"h על הטבילה ↩
5 siman 263, s"k 10 ↩
6 ibid., s"k 27 ↩
7 siman 50, se'if 7 ↩
8 siman 75, se'if 4 ↩
9 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 263, se'if 8 ↩
10 Some explain (Machon L'Shabtecha, Hilchasa Gevirta, halacha 3) that since on a Yom Tov that falls on Shabbos one certainly must light before the bracha, the "do not distinguish" is also on account of a Yom Tov that falls on Shabbos ↩