Shabbat Candles

Rav M. Elon

We are currently beginning the week of Parashat Va’yak’hel – P’kudei. The topic we will be dealing with tonight is that of the Shabbat Candles. At first glance it would seem that this topic is unconnected to our Parshi’ot, however at a closer glance we will see that to the contrary, possibly its basis appears in these parshi’ot.

The Shabbat candles hold a special place in the feelings and emotions of every Jew. We will attempt to understand the content and nature of these candles. The source for the lighting of Shabbat candles can be found in the Gemara in Masechet Shabbat. The Gemara there brings a number of verses from M’gillat Eicha (The Scroll of Lamentations) whereby Yirmiyahu laments the incidents surrounding the destruction of the Temple.

The Chapter begins with: "I am the man who has seen affliction," (Eicha 3:1,) and then continues to describe the sad and harsh reality. In the Gemara that we quote we will see that the method of deduction applied is that of proof by contradiction, in other words through the lamentations of the prophet over those things that are lacking we learn what reality is actually supposed to be like.

These, then, are the words of the Gemara:

"‘My soul despaired of having peace, I have forgotten goodness,’ (ibid. v. 17.) What is ‘My soul despaired of having peace?’ Rabi Avahu said: ‘This is the lighting of Shabbat candles.’"

(Shabbat 25b)

On the words "My soul despaired of having peace" which describe the prophets terrible despair, indicating that he had ceased to believe that he would ever have good again, the Gemara says that he was in fact referring to Shabbat candles.

The Gemara continues to expound the verse:

"‘I have forgotten goodness’ – Rabi Yirmiya said: ‘This is the bath house.’"

(ibid.)

And then an additional explanation:

"Rabi Yochanan said: ‘This is washing ones hands and feet in hot water.’"

We must note that both going to the bath house as well as washing one’s hands and feet are acts associated with ‘Kavod Shabbat’ – ‘The honor of Shabbat," as opposed to the usual mundane tasks of hygiene.

The Gemara adds two more explanations:

"Rabi Yitzchak Napcha says: ‘This is a beautiful bed and all its trappings.’"

Once again the context is one of Shabbat, the significance being that it is precisely that beauty and aesthetic order of a house ready for Shabbat that is lacking.

The final explanation in the Gemara:

"Rabi Abba says: ‘This is a prepared bed and a woman adorned for Talmidei Chachamim, (Torah Scholars.)’"

This statement refers to the idyllic marital relationship, which gains the climax of its significance specifically on Shabbat.

The common denominator of all these explanations is that our Sages are expounding Yirmiyahu’s lament with regard his Shabbat experience, which has become an all too ‘technical Shabbat’ – that means to say that the Shabbat framework remains, but the special characteristics that transform Shabbat into an island of beauty during the week are deficient.

Bathing prior to Shabbat, for example, does not detract from Shabbat in the technical, dry sense, however entering Shabbat while one is unclean (even not having washed one’s hands and feet which is the bare minimum that our Sages required) – detracts from the spirit and atmosphere that Shabbat attempts to create.

In any event, returning to our topic, the verse "My soul despaired of having peace" is explained by our Sages to refer to the Shabbat candles. Quite clearly our Sages saw a connection between peace and the Shabbat candles, and this is something we must investigate.

Rashi writes as follows:

"The lighting of Shabbat Candles – for he had no means with which to light, and where there is no candle there is no shalom (peace), for one stumbles and moves around in darkness."

(Rashi ibid.)

In other words, without candles on walks around and stumbles, and this is the ‘lack of peace’ that results after the destruction of the Temple, which nullified the Shabbat Candles.

Let us note that there is an additional version to the conclusion of Rashi’s words which has the words "and eats in darkness" for "and moves around in darkness." Once again the significance of this is that the darkness can cause one to stumble. The common denominator of these two versions within Rashi is that they explain the verse in a very technical manner – the darkness and loss of visibility lead to blunderings.

The Rishonim record a number of Halachot that are related to this very issue. For example, the Hagahot Maimoni’ot writes as follows:

"I found (recorded) in the name of Rabbenu (our Teacher) that it is permissible to light (Shabbat) candles in the home and to eat in the yard, should one desire it. And Rabbenu Simcha of Shapira was accustomed to doing so."

"Rabbenu" refers to the Rambam. The Hagahot Maimoni’ot records in the name of the Rambam that it is permissible to light the Shabbat candles inside the house and then to eat outside in the yard. He concluded with testimony of such behavior in the form of Rabbenu Simcha.

From this annotation of the Hagahot Maimoni’ot to the Rambam, we learn that in his view, as well as in the Rambam’s view, there is more to the Shabbat candles than the pure technical reasoning of Rashi, that the light may prevent one from stumbling.

Now let us examine the Rambam himself in his dealings with the laws of the Shabbat Candles.

We find the following relationship to the Shabbat candles in the Rambam:

"The lighting of Shabbat Candles is not ("R’shut") optional, if one so desires, he lights, if one so desires he does not light. And it is not a Mitzva (Torah commandment) that he is obliged to ensure that he performs it, in the same manner as Eiruvei Chatzerot ("The combining of yards" into one domain so as to permit carrying on Shabbat) or N’tilat yadayim (ritual washing of the hands) prior to eating, but rather (it is) an ("Chova") obligatory practice. Both men and women are obliged to have a lit candle in their homes on Shabbat."

(Rambam, Hilchot Shabbat, 5:1)

Thus, in the Halachic framework there are three levels of obligations, whether to perform or refrain from performing a certain action. The first is "R’shut" – which means that one may choose whether or not to act. The second is that of "Mitzva" – which means that I am not obligated to initiate its performance, if, however, I am in a certain situation then I am obligated to perform it, for example, N’tilat yadayim prior to eating. One is not obligated to wash his hands in this manner unless he desires to eat bread, in which case he is obligated to wash his hands.

Finally, the third category is that of "Chova" – no longer does one have the prerogative whether or not to enter a situation whereby he will become obligated with a certain obligation or not. Here, whether one chooses to or not, he must initiate the fulfillment of the obligation that has been placed upon him.

Hence, the Rambam defines the lighting of Shabbat candles as a member of the third category, "Chova" – one must consciously and actively initiate the act of lighting the candles prior to Shabbat.

This is also an all-encompassing obligation, for the Rambam writes: "Both men and women are obliged to have a lit candle in their homes on Shabbat."

We see the importance of this obligation from the continuation of the Rambam:

"Even if one has no food to eat – he must beg in order to acquire oil in order to light the Shabbat lights, for this is part of Oneg Shabbat (Shabbat enjoyment.)"

Thus we see that the obligation of Shabbat Candles is considered part of the Mitzva of Oneg Shabbat, which is derived from the verse in Y’sha’yahu:

"Then you will delight ("tit’a’nag") in God, and I will mount you astride the heights of the world..."

(Y’sha’yahu 58:14)

At this point a question arises that many of the Rishonim discuss.

From the Rambam it is clear that the obligation of Shabbat Candles is a sub-category of Oneg Shabbat. If this is the case, why did the Rambam – the great Codifier and organizer that he was – record the laws of the Shabbat Candles here, as opposed to joining them with the laws of Oneg Shabbat and Kavod Shabbat (Honor of Shabbat) in Chapter Thirty of his Laws of Shabbat?

It is therefore clear that the Rambam lends special importance to this mitzva.

Secondly, if the mitzva of Shabbat Candles is in fact to be grouped with those mitzvot categorized as "Oneg Shabbat," why does the Rambam denote this as "Chova?" Why is there a Chova, a binding obligation, to enjoy Shabbat, to delight in Shabbat in such a fashion?

The Rambam continues as follows:

"The person who lights (the Shabbat Candles) must light (them) while it is still day, prior to sunset. Women have a greater obligation in this regards than men, for they are normally at home and are involved in the household tasks. Nevertheless, a man should caution them concerning this matter and check that they have done so. He should tell the members of his household on the eve of Shabbat prior to nightfall: ‘Light the candle.’ If it is doubtful as to whether night has fallen, and thus Shabbat has commenced, or whether Shabbat has not yet commenced – one does not light (the candles.)"

(ibid. 5:3)

This is a very interesting point that the Rambam adds. For we previously learned that the obligation applies both to men and to women, yet here the Rambam emphasizes that the obligation is primarily incumbent upon women. The Rambam’s reasoning is rather technical: "for they are normally at home and are involved in the household tasks." This reason is rather surprising, for another reason, which seems to be more fundamental than that offered by the Rambam, is offered by our Sages.

The Mishna in the Chapter of "Ba’me Madlikin" – "With what may we light (the Shabbat lights)" states:

"For three sins women die in childbirth: because they are not observant of (the laws of) Nidda, (family purity,) Challah, (separation of the tithe on dough,) and the lighting of the (Shabbat) lights."

(Shabbat 31b)

The Gemara comments on this Mishna as follows:

"As that Galilean expounded to Rav Chisda: ‘God said, ‘I put a r’vi’it (‘one quarter’ of a log) of blood in you, therefore I commanded you concerning blood.’’"

(ibid.)

Blood offers one the opportunity of life, and Dam Nidda ("The blood of Nidda" – ie. the laws of family purity concerning a woman during her menstrual cycle) is the parallel to that opportunity for life. Nidda is the separation from one’s wife when there no longer is a possibility of life, (which is in essence the menstrual process.)

The Gemara adds:

"I designated you "the first," hence I commanded you regarding the first (portion of dough to be separated for the Challah Tithe.)"

(ibid. 32a)

Yisra’el is termed "Reshit" – "the first," and this is the significance our Sages gave to the first word of the Torah, "B’reshit" – "In the reshit," ie. "in the beginning," or "at first" – "B’reshit" = for ‘Reshit,’ the world was created for Yisra’el.

This is also the verse in Yirmiyahu which terms Yisra’el as "Reshit:"

"Yisra’el is holy to God, the first ("reshit") of His crop."

(Yirmiyahu 2:3)

And Challah is also termed "Reshit:"

"As the first ("reshit") of your kneading you shall set aside a loaf as a portion…"

(Bamidbar 15:20)

We then come to the concept of the Shabbat Lights:

"The soul which I placed in you is called ‘ner’ (candle, light,) therefore I commanded you concerning the ‘ner.’ If you fulfill them, good, but if not, I will take your lives."

(Shabbat 32a)

Hence the soul is termed "ner" – "The soul of man is the candle ("ner") of God,"(Mishlei 20:27,) and women were commanded regarding the ner. Why were women specifically commanded in regard these three mitzvot? Rashi answers this question:

"I will take your lives – and the r’vi’it of your blood will be lost, and your ner will be extinguished, and your title of ‘reshit’ will be annulled. Women were commanded as to these as was stated in B’reshit Raba: ‘She terminated the Challah of the world, for it was through her that Adam – who was separated as a Challah tithe - was tormented, and the world’s ner was extinguished, and his blood was spilled; another reason, for the household necessities are dependant on her."

(Rashi, Shabbat 32a)

Let us note that Rashi’s primary explanation is that women are obligated in these three mitzvot as rectification for the primal sin of Adam. Afterwards Rashi adds "for the household necessities are dependant on her."

Why, then, did the Rambam neglect the primary reasoning of our Sages in B’reshit Raba, preferring to base the central explanation for women’s increased obligation – more so than men’s – on a reason that seems so technical?

Let us sum up all that we said thus far.

The Shabbat Candles are considered as part of those mitzvot categorized as "Oneg Shabbat," however Shabbat Candles (as the Rambam explains) are unique in two respects. The first is the Rambam’s dealing with the laws of lighting Shabbat Candles in Chapter Five of his Laws of Shabbat, and not in Chapter Thirty where it would seem more appropriate to place them, together with all the laws of Oneg Shabbat. (As we mentioned, the Rambam paid great attention to detail and order, and therefore this is an important discrepancy.) The second respect in which Shabbat Candles are unique is their classification as "Chova" – a binding "obligation" – despite its being part of "Oneg Shabbat" – "Shabbat Enjoyment." What is the reason to obligate one in such a manner of "enjoyment?"

We have seen that the obligation to light Shabbat Candles is incumbent on both men and women, despite the fact that its primary obligation is incumbent on women. The Rambam explains this fact with only explanation which seems to be purely technical. Therefore we questioned this, after we have seen that in the Midrash of B’reshit Rabba another explanation is offered which seems more fundamental. Why did the Rambam neglect this explanation and specifically an explanation which seems secondary?

Let us leave these issues for the time being, and let us see how all this is connected to our parasha, Parashat Va’yak’hel.

Our parasha opens as follows:

"Moshe assembled the entire community of Bnei Yisra’el and said to them: ‘These are the words that God has commanded for (you) to do: ‘You may do work during the six weekdays, but the seventh day must be kept holy as a Shabbat of Shabbats to God; whoever does any work on (that day) shall be put to death. Do not ignite any fire on Shabbat, in all your dwelling places.’’"

(Sh’mot 35:1-3)

There are two clear questions that arise from these verses. Firstly, the first verse creates the expectation of a commandment regarding the performance a specific act, as the verse states "These are the words that God has commanded for (you) to do." However the very next verse, "but the seventh day must be kept holy as a Shabbat of Shabbats to God; whoever does any work on (that day) shall be put to death" reveals that the expectation of a commandment regarding the performance of a specific act has been replaced by a prohibition to perform certain acts!

There were those commentators who attempted to explain that the verse indicating that God was to command the performance of a certain act in fact refers to later verses, regarding the command to build the Mishkan, the Tabernacle. However this is a difficult position to entertain, for why, then, are the verses regarding Shabbat interjected into the middle of what is seemingly one command?

Soon we will see that the greatest act which we were commanded to perform is in fact the abstention from performing activity.

For just as God Who does not require to rest from activity, refrained from certain acts, and we therefore see that there is in fact a creative nature to the act of "resting," or abstaining from activity; so too we are commanded to abstain from activity in a manner that is a creative mode of resting and abstention. We will expand on this concept shortly.

The second question is termed "hav’ara l’ma yatzat" – "why is ignition (of a fire) specified" by our Sages. Why is the prohibition of igniting a fire on Shabbat recorded in the Torah independently and not derived together with the other thirty-eight categories of activities prohibited on Shabbat, which are derived from the report of the construction of the Mishkan. (Each "m’lacha" (category of a forbidden act) is derived from one of the major activities performed in the construction of the Mishkan.)

Why does this prohibition require its own unique verse of:

. "Do not ignite any fire on Shabbat, in all your dwelling places?"

(ibid. v. 3)

Our Sages answer this question as follows: "Hav’ara l’chalek yatzat" – "(The prohibition of) igniting (a fire) was specified separately in order to distinguish (certain aspects of its laws from those of the other m’lachot.)"

We will examine another answer offered to this question, an answer recorded by Rav Sa’adya Gaon.

Before we consider his answer, it is important to mention that Rav Sa’adya Gaon wrote a book on Shabbat Candles, the majority of which was lost. Some of it was found and reprinted in Rav Kasher’s "Torah Shlema" anthology of exegesis.

Rav Sa’adya Gaon aims to answer the question we posed regarding the specific prohibition of igniting a fire on Shabbat. After he answers with the resolution derived by the Gemara, (l’chalek yatzat,) he records an additional reason, as follows:

"And the issue is as follows: (God) had already commanded them to prepare bread and cooked dishes in advanced for Shabbat, as the verse states, ‘Bake (now) what you want to bake,’ (Sh’mot 16:23,) and the ner remained, for He had not commanded them to prepare it in advance for Shabbat. Therefore He explained (its legal status) here, as the verse states: "Do not ignite any fire on Shabbat," but ignite (now) what you want to ignite. And this issue was not completed there, for there the context was preparation for the manna, and the manna has no association to the ner – therefore the (discussion of) the issue (of the ner) was left until it was completed here."

Therefore according to Rav Sa’adya Gaon, our parasha offers the correct context for commanding the laws of the Shabbat Candles (and lights,) for the Jews had already been commanded about the other Shabbat preparations. And the commandment regarding the Shabbat Candles is delivered as a prohibition to ignite fire on Shabbat, thus by contradiction it is permissible to ignite a fire prior to Shabbat and have it burn into Shabbat. What fire is the verse referring to? This is the ner.

Rav Sa’adya Gaon’s explanation is based upon the words of the Mechilta:

"‘Do not ignite any fire on Shabbat’ – why was this stated? For the verse states, ‘Cease from all plowing and reaping,’ (Sh’mot 34:21) – cessation (of m’lacha) from the eve of the Sh’mitta year continuing into the Sh’mitta year itself (is commanded,) could the same (law) apply from the eve of Shabbat continuing into Shabbat, and one may be forbidden to light a ner or maintain hot (food) or make a fire (prior to Shabbat for benefit on Shabbat?) Hence the verse states: ‘Do not ignite any fire on Shabbat.’ On Shabbat one may not ignite a fire, but one may ignite from the eve of Shabbat to (continue into) Shabbat."

(Mechilta D’rabi Yishma’el, ibid.)

From the Mechilta we may conclude that lighting the ner prior to Shabbat is in fact r’shut, an optional activity, but Rav Sa’adya Gaon deduces the obligation of Shabbat Candles from this Mechilta. We must also analyze Rav Sa’adya Gaon’s conclusion.

In order to complete the picture let us mention a further two Midrashim that complete the outline we have explained thus far.

Our Sages expound the verse:

"God blessed the seventh day, and He sanctified it, for it was on this day that God ceased from all His m’lacha that He had created (so that it would continue) to function,"

(B’reshit 2:3,)

as follows:

"‘God blessed’ – for there is nothing that better sanctifies the Shabbat and elevates it than the lighting of the ner."

(Midrash from manuscripts, recorded in Torah Sh’lema)

In other words, God’s blessing to Shabbat was the ner of Shabbat. Thus the Shabbat Candles express the essence of Shabbat, (which may then explain why the Rambam chose to write the laws of Shabbat in the fifth chapter of his Laws of Shabbat as opposed to including it in the group of laws dealing with Oneg Shabbat. We will expand more on this issue shortly.)

Another Midrash appears on the verse at the beginning of Sefer B’reshit:

"And God said: ‘Let there be light.’ And there was light."

(B’reshit 1:3)

The Midrash states:

"Peace is momentous for God created nothing in the world prior to creating an object of peace. Which is this? This is light, as the verse states: ‘And God said: ‘Let there be light.’’ Where does it state that (light) is peace? As it states, ‘I form the light and create darkness, I make peace,’ (Y’sha’yahu 45:7.) Our Sages expounded from this that one’s ner and (wine for) Kiddush on Shabbat – one’s ner takes precedence. The significance being: Light is termed ‘peace’ and therefore the ner takes precedence over wine, for it is light and peace."

(Recorded on the above verse in Torah Sh’lema)

Let us explain each idea step by step.

Fire is one of the four fundamental elements, (water, wind, dust, fire,) however fire has a very interesting quality. Fire is an element that man has the power to create, and thus is closely associated to it; yet simultaneously fire is the most distant element from man. Man is capable of existing in water, wind, and dust, yet may not spend even one minute within fire. Fire is also the element with which man fashions infinite creations. Fire has an additional characteristic of being perpetually connected to a material base, which forms the foundation for its combustion, and as the physical, material foundation diminishes, so the fire nears its termination.

What then is a ner – a candle, a lamp? We know that the verse states:

"For the commandment ("mitzva") is a ner, and Torah is light."

(Mishlei 6:23)

Hence the mitzva is compared to a ner, and the Torah is compared to light. A mitzva is compared to a ner for every mitzva is associated with a material, tangible act, and therefore the ner hints at the light, the flame, which is dependent on the physical. However the Torah acts and exists detached from tangible acts, and therefore the Torah is compared to light itself.

Generally speaking, the ner hints at limited man’s ability to act as a receptacle for the Divine light. And the light hints at an infinite object which we are unable to grasp.

Therefore one must remember that his capacity of being a receptacle and his ability of perception are considered as a ner, and not as light or a light source. Even the light that is absorbed by a person’s soul is limited, (hence the light with which the world was created was hidden, only to be revealed in the future.)

In our context, Shabbat is considered as light. God, not Am Yisra’el, sanctified the day of Shabbat, and hence Shabbat’s sanctity exists unconditionally, (unlike the sanctity of the festivals which is dependant on Bet Din.)

The candles we light at the onset of Shabbat are an expression of the maximal achievement that a human can attain using his own physical, material faculties, using his own "wax." These Shabbat candles are to be lit prior to Shabbat, and are then to continue burning into Shabbat – which expresses the connection between this world and Shabbat, which is "me’ein olam ha’ba" – "akin to the World to Come." This connection is the prime objective, and this is the significance of the Midrash: "for there is nothing that better sanctifies the Shabbat and elevates it than the lighting of the ner." This is the encounter of this world, which is the wax, and the World to Come, which is the fire burning atop the wax. And that small fire that man ignites is the "oneg," the pleasure and enjoyment of God in this world.

The words of our Sages are well known:

"Man and woman: if they are meritorious – the Divine Presence rests among them; if they are not meritorious – fire consumes them.

(Sotah 17a et al.)

We have already mentioned that when the letter yud is removed from "ish," (man,) and the letter hey is removed from "isha," (woman,) the remaining words are "esh esh" – "fire fire." The significance of this that when the inner spiritual content is removed, all that remains are the earthly elements. And when earthly elements come in to contact, friction results, which leads to combustion and fire.

Let us examine this closer, considering the letters yud and hey.

The letter yud hints at the World to Come, at the fundamental essence of the ideal. The letter hey hints at the propagation and appearance of the lofty ideal. This is the great encounter between man and woman, between husband and wife which hints at the encounter of the lover with his beloved one, of God with Am Yisra’el. This encounter of inner spiritual content becomes the fire of peace, in place of the destructive, scorching fire.

This, then, is the significance of the term "oneg" – "pleasure" or "enjoyment."

‘Oneg’ means the merging of this world and the World to Come. Oneg is exactly the opposite of the ‘ne’ga’ – ‘affliction’ or ‘wound.’ Oneg means the bonding of external foundation to the internal point that causes the soul pleasure. Ne’ga, however, is the internal decay that works its way outwards materializing as a wound on the person, or as an affliction on the walls of his home.

This, then, is the significance of the Shabbat Candles. The candle hints at the movement from this world of the six days of activity towards that day which is akin to the World to Come, Shabbat. The candle hints at the soul which is connected to the body, and which affects all its accomplishments via the body. The candle "elevates the Shabbat" for it is the central axis upon which Shabbat rests.

The soul, as we have seen, is termed a ner, ("The soul of man is the candle of God,") and it is linked to the body until the body ceases to exist. Then the soul takes leave of the body and returns to He Who instilled the soul in the body, God.

God accompanies our souls as one who holds a candle, angling it into nooks and crannies in order to search for and then destroy the universal chametz (leaven) that lies hidden. Indeed, this is our objective in this world – to illuminate the world’s darkness with our souls, and to assist the Creator of the World to destroy the universal chametz.

The Rambam, in associating the mitzva of the Shabbat Candles specifically with women because they are involved with the household necessities, intended more than this pure technical reasoning. His intention was that the wife takes responsibility of all that happens in the home, and discerns every activity that occurs in the home, and therefore she is the worthiest of the members of the home to light the Shabbat Candles. For she is the individual who in her corporeal pursuits connects the World to Come with this world, and this is the essence of the Shabbat Candles.

Therefore, resting on Shabbat and incorporating the world of actions into Shabbat is the greatest achievement, for in this manner one learns that all his actions and accomplishments stem from God. So too something that he enacts on Shabbat joins him for his Shabbat cessation from work and rest – which is the greatest accomplishment.

Therefore God commands us to ‘do’ through the cessation of activity.

This, then is the significance of the Shabbat Candles, which according to Rav Sa’adya Gaon were indirectly commanded to Yisra’el through the verse:

. "Do not ignite any fire on Shabbat, in all your dwelling places."

(Sh’mot 35:3)

The Shabbat Candles differ from other mitzvot of Shabbat, for they hint at the essence of Shabbat. They hint at the illumination linked to the material, the soul which envelops the body – hence their great importance.

Thus it is our responsibility and duty and to merit the joining of the fire and the candle’s wax, and the linking of the finite world to the infinite.

Translated by Sholem Hurwitz.

Copyright by Keren Yishai/Rav M. Elon