Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles?

Avodah
1

I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me it sounds like "original sin." YL

From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis

Q. Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles?

A. Shulchan Aruch (263:2-3) writes that both men and women are obligated to fulfill the mitzvah of lighting Shabbos candles. Given the general rule that it is preferable for individuals to perform a mitzvah themselves (mitzvah bo yoser me'bishlucho), it is surprising that in practice men do not perform this mitzvah and are yotzai with the lighting of their wives. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare the home for Shabbos. The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation. Chava shortened Adam's life on erev Shabbos by causing him to sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d's candle (man's neshama), women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act.

Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros the wicks will easily catch fire.

2

And your problem with this is? Did you think only Xians beleived in Chet Etz Hada'as?! True, there is a big difference between our view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi", while they believe it affects the neshama as well. But everyone agrees that it affects us all deeply, and that it requires a major tikkun -- pretty much all of our avodah in this world for all of human history. So why should it surprise us that the task of bringing physical light into the world should be part of that tikun that is preferentially assigned to those who more closely resemble Chava than Adam?

3

:> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to me
:> it sounds like "original sin." YL
:
: Did you think only Xians beleived
: in Chet Etz Hada'as?! True, there is a big difference between our
: view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the
: guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi"...

The guf, the nefesh and perhaps the ruach.

Middos were impacted... Because Adam and Chavah ate from the eitz hadaas
too early, while it was still erev, instead of waiting for full Shabbos,
all our decisions have been consequently an irbuvia. Every good act
has some other motive mixed in, and the same for sin.

Eis hada'as tov-vara, the tree of knowledge that turns our view of
the world into a sea of gray area, good and evil combined.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

4

.

R' Yitzchok Levine cited today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. I have
several comments.

The OU writes:

The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded
this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare
the home for Shabbos.

Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3.
The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was
"awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a
level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why
this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this,
because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs
of the home."

In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting
the lights is part of that!

The OU continues:

The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation.
Chava shortened Adam’s life on erev Shabbos by causing him to
sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d’s candle (man’s neshama),
women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act.

R' Yitzchok Levine asked:

I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to
me it sounds like "original sin."

I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only
superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any
other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't
mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it
became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly
damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there.

Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be
in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do
something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I
think that's all the Tur is saying.

It's a small minhag for us, and a foundation of faith for them - these
are so far apart that I'm not bothered if they both happen to derive
from the same event.

Finally, the OU writes:

Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah
Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the
candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us
that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks
and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros
the wicks will easily catch fire.

It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully
understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain
piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and
difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a
charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later.
In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be
counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be
*more* difficult to light later on.

Akiva Miller

5

But we don't think of it merely as "the first sin, prior to any other sin [...] first on the timeline" either. We agree with them, or rather they agree with us, that it was fundamentally different from any future sin, that it's what made the concept of sin possible, and that it transformed the world and human nature for the worse until the End of Days. It brought death and disease and physical hardship into the world, so that even the few who are truly without any sin of their own must still die. We disagree on some very important details, of course; unlike us, they decided that it affected even the neshama (that which goes Up after death), and that there is nothing humans can do about it, even in the very long term. But overall these are merely details.

6

> The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded
> this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare
> the home for Shabbos.

Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3.
The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was
"awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a
level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why
this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this,
because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs
of the home."

In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting
the lights is part of that!

Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of homemaker, then he should light the Shabbos candles?

Also, today many Orthodox women work outside of the home, given that it is very difficult for an Orthodox family to survive on one salary. Even though women may stay home when the children are young, most go to work once the kids are old enough for some sort of schooling. Given that roles today are much different than they were in the past, does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles should be shared, one week the man and one week the women. (I am simply playing the devil's advocate here.)

Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be
in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do
something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I
think that's all the Tur is saying.

You wrote, if they had not done what *they* did. Since both of them did this, shouldn't both men and women repair this darkness,

Finally, the OU writes:

> Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah
> Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the
> candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us
> that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks
> and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros
> the wicks will easily catch fire.

It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully
understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain
piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and
difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a
charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later.
In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be
counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be
*more* difficult to light later on.

Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the brochos? I have never heard of this. If there is no problem with Chanukah neiros, then why is there a problem with Shabbos neiros?

YL

7

Yes. Don't everyone? Not with the modern waxed wicks, but those who use old-fashioned cotton ones, isn't it obvious and common practise to do this?

8

I think that words like "original sin" are a bit bombastic. The issue here is that we (the people living in the present) are living in a reality that was affected by poor choices made in the past. Adam and Chava may started this type of ripple effect when they ate the apple but it didn't stop with them. You don't have to be a kabbalist to understand that we live in this reality. So Chava did something wrong and women today light candles as way to somehow correct that mistake. Whether lighting candles is symbolic and meant to teach us something, or if it is a real tikkun is another story.

Ben

9

.

I wrote:

In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then
lighting the lights is part of that!

and R' Yitzchok Levine asked:

Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of
homemaker, then he should light the Shabbos candles?
...
Given that roles today are much different than they were in
the past, does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles
should be shared, one week the man and one week the women. (I
am simply playing the devil's advocate here.)

The Shulchan Aruch that I cited (263:3) did not make any reference to
Chava, only to women's traditional role in the home. If a family has
non-traditional roles, I think they should carefully examine the
side-effects of this, and at least consider the re-assigning of who
lights the candles. To avoid this topic is to stick one's head in the
sand. "We've always done it this way" is often counter-productive.

I have heard of some families (younger than mine) where the husband
recites kiddush for everyone, and the wife recites hamotzi. I am not
advocating this, but I *am* saying that if one wants to reject it, he
should come up with a better reason than it being non-traditional. For
example, if non-family are present, some might consider this
non-tzniyus.

But in every case, we should all acknowledge that this is not like
Shofar or Kriyas Hatorah: When it comes to Kiddush, Hamotzi, and
Neros, the chiyuv upon men and women is absolutely equal, and in
theory there is no impediment to either being motzi the other.

Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which
are usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights
with the brochos? I have never heard of this. If there is
no problem with Chanukah neiros, then why is there a problem
with Shabbos neiros?

As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that
takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real
halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the
lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort,
but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that
does not apply to Chanukah.

My personal practice is that on the first night of Chanuka, after the
wicks have become messily soaked with oil, I squeeze the oil out of
the tip, and separate the threads from each other. This makes them
much easier to light. On subsequent nights, I do *not* replace the
wicks. Instead, I pull the wick up a bit so that I do indeed have a
pre-lit tip for lighting. The new ner for the night is last night's
shamash. And the new shamash for tonight will be a new wick, with the
oil squeezed and threads separated. (Ditto for when there is no more
wick to pull up and it needs to be replaced.)

Akiva Miller

10

But that *is* the Xian doctrine of Original Sin. The important differences are in the nature of the damage done, and whether there's anything we can do about it.

11

First, let me get the easier stuff out of the way. So I am replying to
R Akiva Miller's second post first.