Candle lighting as a form of Shabbat acceptance has long been associated with women. Although both men and women are obligated to have candles lit in their homes, 2 women are usually the ones lighting in households containing adult members of both sexes. In the absence of any other form of kabbalat Shabbat (Shabbat acceptance), the prohibition against melakha (productive work) does not automatically apply to men or women until it starts to get dark, which is at least 18 minutes after the customary lighting time. But although anyone is permitted to accept Shabbat early by a voluntary declaration, it is expected halakhically 3 that women accept Shabbat by their act of lighting. Conversely, the action by which men are supposed 4 to experience the onset of Shabbat is to daven Ma’ariv individually or with a minyan.
This article examines whether it might be permitted halakhically to weaken or sever the connection between candle lighting and kabbalat Shabbat. In other words, is it possible for women to continue to take responsibility for candle lighting but accept Shabbat another way?
Rabbinic texts explain the association between women and candle lighting both homiletically (Eve, the first woman, extinguished the light of the world 5 ; failure to attend to candle lighting is one reason that women die in childbirth 6 ) and practically (women are more likely to be responsible for household affairs 7 ). Women today continue to feel a special connection to candle lighting. The practical link still makes sense to many because women are generally more involved in household affairs than men, whether they work outside the home or not. 8 Other women may focus on associations such as creating shalom bayit (peace in the home) 9 or honoring their mothers.
Surprisingly, the relationship between candle lighting and kabbalat Shabbat is the subject of a long-standing halakhic debate. There is a mahloket (rabbinic disagreement) among rishonim (early rabbinic authorities) over whether kabbalat Shabbat hinges on candle lighting or on davening Ma’ariv. On the one hand, the Behag (Hilkhot Hanukah 9:158) rules that, when lighting Hanukah candles on Friday night, one should light them before lighting Shabbat candles, because “if one lit for Shabbat first, he would prohibit himself from lighting for Hanukah because he would have accepted Shabbat upon himself.”
On the other hand, Ramban (Hiddushim on Shabbat 23b) objects strenuously to the Behag’s conclusion. He points to a baraita (a teaching from the time of the Mishnah) on Shabbat 35b:
On Friday afternoon we sound six blasts [of the shofar] … the third is to light the candles … and we wait in order to roast a small fish or in order to put bread in the oven.
He uses this text to prove that other melakhot were performed after candle lighting. The Rosh (Shabbat, siman 24) has the same interpretation. He also emphasizes several talmudic stories about rabbis bringing Shabbat in early by davening Ma’ariv, which imply that lighting was not the moment of Shabbat acceptance.
In contrast, Rabbeinu Nissim (the Ran) supports the Behag’s opinion (Shabbat 10a, “ibhrntsnu”), countering the baraita quoted above by explaining it figuratively. He argues that “in order to roast a small fish” means that there would be as much time after the third blast as it takes to roast a small fish, not that anyone was actually doing so. The Ran also points out several talmudic stories that do seem to emphasize the importance of making candle lighting one’s last melakha before dark. Ultimately, although the Shulhan Arukh cites both positions at one point (Orah Hayyim 263:10), he explicitly rules (OH 261:4) that davening Ma’ariv is what brings in Shabbat.
To whose kabbalat Shabbat does this rabbinic dispute apply? On the surface, it seems to be relevant to both men and women. There are no distinctions drawn based on sex, even when comparing stories of men and women accepting Shabbat early. Some of the examples of candle lighting are cases of men, often rabbis, doing the lighting themselves. 10 But none of the stories about davening Ma’ariv are about women, and it seems unlikely that the rabbis considered women regular enough in their davening 11 to suggest that women’s Shabbat acceptance hinges on their participation in the evening service. It makes sense, then, to posit that the mahloket applies to men when they happened to be lighting candles for themselves, whereas it was assumed that women accepted Shabbat through candle lighting, which was more often their role than that of men.
The first text to make this assumption explicit is Kol Bo (siman 31), which states, “A woman who lights is forbidden from doing melakha after she lights, because since she has blessed on [the candle lighting] there is no greater form of [Shabbat] acceptance than that, and no tenai (stipulation) will help her.” R. Moshe Isserles, in his gloss on the Shulhan Arukh (Rema on OH 263:10), asserts, “The minhag is for women to accept Shabbat upon themselves by their candle lighting.” In contrast to Kol Bo, however, he qualifies this minhag by adding that women may make a verbal or mental tenai stating that they are not accepting Shabbat through their lighting.
Although later authorities agree with the minhag of women accepting Shabbat upon lighting, the tenai continues to be a source of disagreement. Prisha (263) sides with Kol Bo, emphasizing that women accept Shabbat by lighting and “there is no permitting them” to do otherwise. Magen Avraham (OH 263-20) permits a tenai but only “if there is a need,” a requirement repeated by the Mishnah Berurah (263–44). In the contemporary halakhic work Shemirat Shabbat K’Hilkhata (43:24), R. Yehoshua Neuwirth holds that when a woman lights candles early with a tenai, someone else in the household must accept Shabbat. Furthermore, he discourages any public melakhot after candle lighting, such as going out in a car.
The fact that men accept Shabbat by davening Ma’ariv and women accept it through candle lighting has many consequences. Men have an extra 18 minutes or more to finish up their Shabbat preparations; this extra time is far from trivial in the winter months when everyone is scrambling to get everything ready by mid-afternoon sunset. The requirement to light at home restricts women from traveling any way but by foot (for example, to reach a synagogue or the home of a dinner host), even if they light earlier than necessary. Finally, men are encouraged to find spiritual meaning communally in the form of a minyan rather than privately in the home.
Many women today struggle with the practical and spiritual challenges posed by these requirements. In particular, women who have made regular davening part of their lives may feel frustrated that their efforts are not supported by the current minhag. For those who want to accept Shabbat at shul or through an individual recitation of Ma’ariv, the emphasis on candle lighting may put undue stress on a set of priorities that do not reflect their reality.
R. Eliezer Waldenberg (1915–2006), a prominent halakhist who lived in Jerusalem, indicated in a teshuva his awareness of women’s feelings on this topic. He commented (Tzitz Eliezer 10:19) that many people had asked him about the permissibility of making a tenai in order to experience kabbalat Shabbat by davening at the Kotel. Although he held that some “need” was a prerequisite for making a tenai, he categorized the desire of some women to take part in communal davening as a “need.” He talked about the preference for accepting Shabbat as part of a large group of people doing the same, about the greater emotional experience of davening at the Kotel, and about the desire of women to “fill their spiritual thirst.” R. Waldenberg accepted all of these as forms of “need” and permitted women to make a tenai to achieve them.
R. Waldenberg did not seem to see a conflict between lighting candles in honor of Shabbat while postponing acceptance of Shabbat until later. Using his opinion as support, there may be room for women who wish to defer their kabbalat Shabbat to make a regular, weekly tenai based on spiritual, practical, or psychological needs. This would require them to acknowledge the significance of candle lighting (as a visual marker of Shabbat as well as for the emotional reasons mentioned earlier) and would remind them to be conscious of Shabbat’s beginning at their chosen time of acceptance. A weekly tenai can be compared to a weekly check on the eruv. In both cases, people can create a way out of the basic restriction as long as they keep reminding themselves that it exists.
Is it possible for women to eliminate entirely the minhag of acceptance through lighting? Although some women may wish never to accept Shabbat at candle lighting, minhag is not dependent only on individuals, and most communities still link candle lighting and kabbalat Shabbat. However, a substantial shift in behaviors and attitudes could lead us to dismiss this minhag as obsolete. Candle lighting could lose its association with women as couples increasingly share responsibility for the home, or it might become less significant as a marker of Shabbat’s beginning if many women choose to assign that role to Ma’ariv. For now, we can affirm tradition and communal practice while using the tenai to validate the reality of women’s individual lives.