Click here to view the full article with footnotes.
5786/2026
The Case
One of America’s top Poskim, Rav Asher Bush (Teshuvot Shoel BeShelomo 1:16), wrote a Teshuvah regarding a woman who forgot to light Neirot Shabbat, but the electric lights were lit for Shabbat. The woman asked Rav Bush whether she must follow the Rama’s ruling (O.C. 263:1) that a woman who forgets to light Neirot Shabbat must light an additional candle every subsequent week. Significantly, the Rama’s source is the Maharil, a late Ashkenazic Rishon who records Minhagim. Because this requirement to light an additional candle is a custom of later origin, there is room to treat it more lightly than if it were a full-fledged Halachah.
A simple explanation for this custom (see Mishnah Berurah 263:7) is that it is a fine (Kenas) for forgetting to light candles. The Kenas is a potent reminder to light candles every week. A more esoteric explanation is that Neirot Shabbat serve as a Tikkun (reparation) for Chavah’s sin of eating from the Eitz HaDa’at. Lighting candles brings light into the world, which replaces the light that was removed when Chavah sinned.
The consensus of Poskim regards electricity as acceptable for Shabbat candles. Nonetheless, we must ask if electric lights lit without intention to fulfill the Mitzvah of Neirot Shabbat nevertheless count towards her fulfillment of the Mitzvah.
Chovat HaBayit
Rav Bush seeks to demonstrate that the Mitzvah of Neirot Shabbat can be fulfilled even if the woman does not light the candles. For example, if the woman is unable to light, her husband (or any other household member) is obligated to light. Lighting candles is an obligation incumbent upon the house (Chovat HaBayit), not upon the woman (Chovat HaGuf). Therefore, Poskim do not impose the Kenas if the husband lit, for the main purpose of Neirot Shabbat - to illuminate the house for Shabbat - has been achieved.
Similarly, if a woman remembers during Bein HaShemashot (Halachic twilight, which, for these purposes, lasts for approximately 20 minutes after sundown) that she did not light Neirot Shabbat, she may instruct a non-Jew to light for her.
Thus, we see that the Neirot Shabbat obligation is not focused on the actual lighting, but rather on having the house lit. Accordingly, since in our case the house was lit by electric lights for Shabbat, logically no Kenas is necessary, since the Mitzvah’s purpose was fulfilled.
Lighting Early – Rabbeinu Tam vs. Rabbeinu Meshulam
Nevertheless, the scope of this principle is disputed. Tosafot (Shabbat 25b s.v. Chovah) present Rabbeinu Meshulam’s view that if a candle was burning before Shabbat, there is no need to extinguish it and relight it for Neirot Shabbat. Rabbeinu Meshulam, feels that if the house is lit for Shabbat, there is no need to light a candle specifically for Neirot Shabbat. According to this approach, the woman in Rav Bush’s case fulfilled the Mitzvah of Neirot Shabbat, for although she did not intend to light for Shabbat, the Mitzvah can be fulfilled without such intent if the house has light.
However, Tosafot also cite Rabbeinu Tam, who rejects Rabbeinu Meshulam arguing that the candle must be extinguished and relit for Neirot Shabbat. Rabbeinu Tam believes that, although it does not matter how the house became lit up, it must be illuminated for Shabbat. According to this position, the woman in our case fulfilled the Mitzvah of Neirot Shabbat only if she lit the electric lights with the intention of illuminating the house for Shabbat. The Rama (O.C. 263: 4) codifies Rabbeinu Tam’s view.
The Bi’ur Halacha (263:6 s.v. Bachurim) explains that there are two distinct aspects to Neirot Shabbat. First, every person is required to light candles (Ma’aseh Hadlakah). Second, there must be light in every room that a person intends to use, such that no one’s Oneg Shabbat will be disrupted by lack of light (Shalom Bayit). To fulfill the Mitzvah, both requirements must be met. In Rav Bush’s case, the need for Shalom Bayit was met since the house was lit.
Rav Bush contends that even though the woman did not intend to fulfill the Mitzvah of Neirot Shabbat with the electric lights, she performed the requisite Maaseh Hadlakah. The Mishnah Berurah (263:20) rules that if a light was lit after Plag HaMinchah (seventy-five Halachic minutes before sunset) for the sake of illuminating the house for Shabbat, B’dieved (post facto) the Mitzvah of Neirot Shabbat has been fulfilled even if there was no intent to begin/accept Shabbat with this lighting. Rav Bush argues that if electric lights were lit after Plag HaMinchah, we can assume that they were lit for the sake of illuminating the house for Shabbat. In fact, he reports that he was asked this question a second time, and, upon being asked what her intentions had been when lighting the electric lights, the woman replied that she wanted the house to be lit for Shabbat. Therefore, the woman’s kindling the electric lights can be considered a Ma’aseh Hadlakah, meaning that she fulfilled both requirements of the Mitzvah of Neirot Shabbat, in which case the Rama’s Kenas would not apply.
Questioning Rav Bush
However, if a woman fulfills the Mitzvah of Neirot Shabbat by turning on electric lights even without intention to fulfill the Mitzvah, how is it that women light wax candles with a Brachah after having turned on electric lights for Shabbat after Plag HaMinchah? If the Mitzvah has already been fulfilled, how can the Berachah be made? Does this not violate the principle, “Kol HaMitzvot Kulan Mevareich Aleihen Oveir LeAsiyatan”, “All Berachot on Mitzvot must be made before performing the Mitzvah” (Sukkah 39a)? The Berachah would seem to be in vain. Furthermore, the Rama (O.C. 263:10) records the Ashkenazic Minhag that women accept Shabbat when lighting Shabbat candles. Therefore, if the Mitzvah can be fulfilled via electric lights even without intent, it should be forbidden for women to do Melachah (work) after turning on any electric lights on Friday afternoon after Pelag HaMinchah, for they accept Shabbat by fulfilling the Mitzvah! Therefore, it seems that women have an implicit intention not to fulfill the Mitzvah of Neirot Shabbat with anything other than the wax candles lit right before Shabbat.
Rav Bush deftly deflects these challenges, cogently arguing that all lights lit for the sake of illuminating the house fulfill the Mitzvah of Neirot Shabbat. Any extra light enhances the Mitzvah. Therefore, even after the electric lights have been lit, it is still permissible to recite the Berachah on additional lights or candles. Indeed, Halacha considers the wax candles placed on the table to be the primary fulfillment of the Mitzvah (Rama O.C. 263:10), and a woman may make the Berachah over these candles. As proof, Rav Bush cites the Rama’s ruling (O.C. 263:8; see, however, the Shulchan Aruch’s ruling ad. loc.) that two women may light candles in the same place and may each recite a Berachah. Even though the area already is illuminated by the first woman’s candles, the second may recite a Berachah, because she adds more light to the area and thereby adds to the Mitzvah. The fact that women recite the Berachah on the wax candles does not mean that the Mitzvah has not been performed before lighting them (Berachot Einan Me’akvot).
On the other hand, Rav Bush proves that the Berachah determines Kabbalat Shabbat. Ashkenazic women do not make the Berachah until after lighting the candles (despite the principle of Oveir LeAsiyatan), because if they did make the Berachah beforehand, lighting the candles would be forbidden, since the Berachah constitutes the Kabbalat Shabbat. Similarly, the general practice is not to drop the match immediately upon lighting the candles, which shows conclusively that Kabbalat Shabbat is not concomitant with lighting the candles, but rather with some other action, namely, the recitation of the Berachah. Thus, the fact that women usually perform Melachah after turning on electric lights for Shabbat does not prove that they do not intend to fulfill the Mitzvah with the electricity.
The Pri Megadim’s Stringency
Even assuming the woman fulfilled Hadlakat Neirot with electric lights, there still may be reason to impose the Kenas. The Pri Megadim (Eishel Avraham 263:3) extends the Rama’s Kenas to a woman who forgot to light as many candles as she normally does. For instance, if a woman ordinarily lights three candles and, in one week, she lights only two, the Pri Megadim requires her to light four candles every succeeding week. According to the Pri Megadim, the woman in Rav Bush’s case must light an extra candle every week, for she did not light as many candles as normal.
The Poskim debate whether the Pri Megadim is followed. The Machatzit HaShekel (263:3) and Kaf HaChaim (263:11) accept it, but the Bi’ur Halacha (263:1 s.v. SheShachechah) rejects it. He invokes the principle, “Chiddush Hu VeHavu DeLo Losif Alah,” “It is a novel ruling; we do not extend it” (see Sanhedrin 27a). Although we follow the established Minhag, there is no compelling reason to extend it to cases beyond those for which it was adopted. Significantly, the Pri Megadim’s stringency is not mentioned by the Chayei Adam (Hilchot Shabbat 5:13), Aruch HaShulchan (O.C. 263:11), or Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (75:14), and Yalkut Yosef (Orach Chaim 263:26-28) in their discussions of the Rama’s Kenas, implying that it was not widely accepted.
Other Rulings
Several contemporary Poskim address cases identical to Rav Bush’s. Rav Yaakov Yosef (Otzar Dinim LeIshah 9:26 note 42) cites his father, Rav Ovadia Yosef, as ruling, like Rav Bush, that if electric lights were lit in the house, there is no need to impose the Kenas. Rav Hershel Schachter agrees.
On the other hand, Rav Shmuel Wosner (Teshuvot Sheivet HaLevi 5:33) rules that the Kenas applies even if the electricity was lit. Rav Wosner argues that it is inconceivable that a woman who completely forgot to light her usual candles should be spared from the Kenas.
Rav Elazar Meir Teitz agrees that electric lights are sufficient for Shalom Bayit. However, he does not believe that any lights lit after Plag HaMinchah were lit for Shabbat’s sake. According to Rav Teitz, unless the woman had specific intentions to illuminate the house for Shabbat when she lit the electric lights, she would be required to add another candle every week.
Conclusion
Yalkut Yosef (Orach Chaim 263:26) is even more lenient than Rav Bush. He writes that the Kenas does not apply if the house was lit. He does not distinguish between whether the lights were lit for Shabbat or whether they were lit after Plag Minchah. Many Rabbanim, whether Sephardic or Ashkenazic, follow this ruling, including Rav Mordechai Willig. They feel that since the Rama’s Kenas is of a later origin, we may be lenient in its application.