Siman 263

The Rambam wrote at the beginning of chapter 5: "Lighting a lamp on Shabbat is not optional, such that if one wishes he lights and if he wishes he does not light, nor is it a mitzvah, such that he is not obligated to pursue it... rather it is an obligation, and both men and women are obligated to have a lamp lit in their homes on Shabbat. Even if he has nothing to eat—he begs at the doorways and takes oil and lights the lamp, for this is included in the delight of Shabbat. And he is obligated to bless before lighting: 'Blessed are You, Hashem our G-d, King of the universe, Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to light the Shabbat lamp,' in the manner that he blesses over all things that he is obligated in by the words of the Scribes." Thus far his words. And even though we do not bless over every delight of Shabbat, nevertheless, lighting the lamp was an enactment unto itself, as we say (25b): "Lighting a lamp on Shabbat is an obligation," and Rashi explained the reason, that it is for the honor of Shabbat, for a meal is not significant except in a place of light similar to the day. Thus far his words. And according to Rashi, this is not from the delight of Shabbat, but rather from the honor of Shabbat.

The Rambam himself in chapter 30 considers the lighting of the candle as part of the honor of Shabbat, as he wrote there: "And there shall be a candle lit, a table set, and a bed made, for all of these are for the honor of Shabbat." Thus far his words. And it must be said that both exist, for in the place where they eat—it is part of the honor of Shabbat, and in the other rooms—it is part of the delight of Shabbat, so that he shall not stumble in his walking there. And this is what they said there: "'And my soul was removed from peace'—this refers to the lighting of the candle on Shabbat," for when there is a candle there is peace, and they will not stumble and fall. Therefore, because there is in this honor and delight—the sages were stringent regarding it and made it like a mitzvah unto itself, to the point that they recite a blessing over it specifically. Furthermore, since according to the opinion of the Behag that will be explained, this constitutes the acceptance of Shabbat for the woman who lights—therefore a blessing certainly belongs upon this. (And in the Hagahot Maimoniyot letter 1 and in the Mordechai they brought this blessing from the Yerushalmi chapter 4 of Beitzah and the chapter of HaRoeh, that we bless: "...Who has sanctified us... to light the candle for the honor of Shabbat," see there, and I did not find this in the Yerushalmi; and see Tosafot Shabbat subsection 1, that in the place of eating it is called delight. And his words are puzzling, and this is against the words of Rashi and the Rambam in chapter 30 that we brought, and also from the wording of the Rambam here, who wrote: "even if he has nothing to eat"—it is explained that it is not so, and delve into this.)

And one should not infer from the words of Rashi that if they do not eat in this room, one should not recite the blessing over this lighting; for Rashi himself wrote there regarding the exposition of "And my soul was removed from peace—this refers to the lighting of the candle on Shabbat," and Rashi explained that in a place where there is no candle, there is no peace, for he goes and stumbles and walks in darkness, thus far his words, and this is pleasure. Behold, even Rashi did not depend the reason upon eating alone, and this is as I have written, that both reasons are necessary. And there is further proof, for our teacher Meshullam raised a difficulty: how do we recite a blessing over the lighting of the candle on Shabbat? For behold, we say in Menachot (42b) that regarding any mitzvah whose performance is not the completion of the mitzvah, we do not recite a blessing over it, and here the completion of the mitzvah is at the time of eating. And Ri, the author of the Tosafot, answered him that here too it is the completion of the mitzvah, for he sees by it to serve the house and to carry vessels to the table. (Cited in Korban Netanel on the Rosh, chapter 2, letter 33). Behold, the mitzvah is also for the use of the house.

Therefore, it appears in my humble opinion that the woman who recites the blessing, if she is able to recite the blessing in the place where they eat—it is certainly better. However, if in the place of eating another woman is reciting the blessing—she may recite the blessing even in a room where they do not eat. And so too a guest in a lodging who has a private room—he may recite the blessing there even though he eats in another place. And this is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 9: Those who kindle in the corner of the house and eat in the courtyard: if the candles are not long enough to burn until nightfall—it is a blessing in vain. Thus far his words. And it implies that the concern is specifically when they eat in the courtyard. But if they eat in the house—we have no concern with it, and ostensibly it is not understood what the difference is between this and that. But according to what we explained, it works out well, for when they eat in the house, even though it is not yet complete night—nevertheless, it is the honor of Shabbat to have light at the time of the meal. But when they eat in the courtyard, and the candle is only for the sake of pleasure and peace of the home so that they do not stumble—this is only during the actual night and not before the night, even though the daylight has diminished. Therefore, if indeed that place was somewhat dark, in a manner that there is benefit in the candle even before the night—he has fulfilled his obligation. (Magen Avraham subsection 17, and see there subsection 16, and this is as I have written, and examine it carefully)

The Shabbat lamp is like the Hanukkah lamp, in that it is a mitzvah and an obligation upon everyone to light it, meaning that every family is obligated in the lighting of the lamp. Therefore, a man in his home when his wife lights and recites the blessing, even if he has a private room—he does not need to light with a blessing, for his wife recites the blessing for him, and in her blessing all the lamps in all the rooms are included; however, he must light so that he does not stumble in his walking. And if he is traveling in an inn: if he has a private room—he must light and recite the blessing, for the blessing in his home does not exempt the lamp in another place entirely. And if he does not have a private room—he does not need to light nor to recite the blessing, as he has fulfilled the mitzvah of lighting the Shabbat lamp in his home through his wife. And if he does not have a wife and he is in an inn, such as young men who go to study away from their home, or if his wife died—they must light the Shabbat lamp in their room and recite a blessing over it, and even if he has a father and mother in another place who light, since he is an adult he is like a homeowner unto himself, and the mitzvah of the Shabbat lamp falls upon him. And it is not similar to when he is in the house of his father and mother, where he is included within the family unit. And if such a man does not have a private room—he must participate with a perutah with the homeowner who stays there, and he fulfills his obligation, and I wonder why they have not practiced so. And over the lamps of the synagogue one should not recite a blessing, for they are only made for the honor of the synagogue, and not to provide light. (Magen Avraham, subsection 15)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 8: Two or three householders eating in one place: some say that each one recites the blessing over his own lamp, and there are those who hesitate regarding the matter. It is proper to be careful regarding a doubt in blessings, and only one should recite the blessing. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: "But we do not practice this way." Thus far his words. The explanation of the matters appears to me to be that if they came to light at the same time—all agree that all of them may light and recite the blessing, like all the mitzvot incumbent upon every individual of Israel, and like the Chanukah candle. However, when one recited the blessing first and afterward another came to light, the second opinion holds that perhaps there is a blessing in vain in this, for here the obligation did not fall upon the second person, since the essence of the mitzvah is for the sake of the light, and here there is already light. And granted that the mitzvah is incumbent upon him—nevertheless, here it is impossible for him to fulfill this mitzvah. And the first opinion holds that it is considered that he too fulfills this mitzvah, because through the increase of lamps the light will increase, and whenever light is added—there is in this an enlargement of the mitzvah of peace in the home and extra joy. And we hold like this opinion, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, was concerned for the second opinion. However, even according to the first opinion—two should not recite the blessing over one lamp that has many branches. (Ibid. in the name of the Shelah) And the reason is that in one lamp only a little light is added, but it is not so when each one lights in a lamp of his own. (And regarding what the Magen Avraham wrote there concerning women on the night of immersion who light in the synagogue—among us they do not practice this way, and among us they wash in the morning and prepare for immersion, and at evening time after the lighting of the candles she goes to the mikveh.)

Upon women this mitzvah is cast most of all, as we learned in the Mishnah (31b): "For three transgressions... for they are not careful with niddah, with challah, and with the lighting of the candle." And the Rambam wrote the reason there, because they are present in the home and engaged in the needs of the home. And in the Midrash it is brought, because Adam the first man was the light of the world, as it is written: "The candle of Hashem is the soul of man," and she caused him to stumble with the Tree of Knowledge and extinguished the light of the world; therefore, her mitzvah is with the candle of Shabbat to atone for the light that she extinguished. And even if the husband desires to light—it is within her power to protest against him, and even if she is a niddah, for a niddah may recite a blessing as was written above in siman 88, except for a woman who has given birth during the first Shabbat when she is presumably not clean—the husband shall bless. And the daughters of Israel are accustomed to each bless for herself even when they are with their mother, even though the husband does not bless and relies on the blessing of his wife, as was written in section 5, because the obligation is only upon the family as was written there; nevertheless, the daughters, because they are commanded more as has been explained—each and every one blesses, and it is good that each one should bless in a room by herself. However, in any event—two should not bless over one lamp as was written.

If his hand cannot reach to purchase a lamp for Shabbat and for the kiddush of the day—the Shabbat lamp is preferable, as it is for the sake of shalom bayit, and kiddush can be performed over bread. And similarly, if his hand cannot reach to purchase a lamp for Shabbat and a lamp for Chanukah—the Shabbat lamp takes precedence for the reason of shalom bayit, for there is no peace in the home without a lamp. And he is unable to fulfill his obligation with one lamp for both Shabbat and Chanukah, because the Shabbat lamp is to be used for its light, and it is forbidden to use the light of the Chanukah lamp, as I have written below in siman 673. And if he has one lamp for Shabbat—it is sufficient, and he should purchase with the remainder wine for kiddush or a Chanukah lamp. However, bread is preferable to a lamp, for eating takes precedence over everything. Nevertheless, if he has bread—the Shabbat lamp takes precedence over other foods. (Magen Avraham, subsection 4) And that which the Rambam wrote: "Even if he has nothing to eat—he begs at the doorways and takes oil and kindles the lamp," as I wrote in section 1, the intention is not that this takes precedence over bread. Rather, this is its explanation: even if he has nothing to eat, and is forced to take bread with the coins in his hand—nevertheless, he shall beg etc. (ibid., and according to this the proof we brought at the end of section 2 is removed)

There is one who says that a blind woman recites the blessing "to kindle the Shabbat candle," and it is an a fortiori argument from the Chanukah candle, for which a blind person is obligated, as is written at the end of siman 675. (Ibid. subsection 9) However, this is no comparison at all, for regarding the Chanukah candle, the kindling is the mitzvah and use by its light is forbidden; if so, the sighted person and the blind person are equal. This is not the case regarding Shabbat, where the essence is the use—to eat by the candle and to use its light—and for the blind person there is no benefit at all, so how can she recite the blessing? Furthermore, this is no comparison to what is written in siman 69, that a blind person recites the blessing "Who forms the luminaries," for that is over the light of the world, for if not for it, they would not be able to walk on the path in the markets and in the streets because of pits and because of thorns, as is found in Megillah (24b), and therefore even for the blind person there is a benefit, that others see him so that he will not stumble in his walking. But in the house—obstacles are not so relevant, and every blind person is expert in his house. Therefore, it appears in my humble opinion that a blind woman should not recite the blessing, and the proof is from havdalah in siman 198.

Regarding the Chanukah candle, it is established for us later in siman 675 that the lighting performs the mitzvah. And if it was already lit and standing not for the sake of the mitzvah of Chanukah—one must extinguish it and relight it for the sake of Chanukah. And one must also light it in its place where it is required to stand, and not light it in another place and bring it to its place, see there; and also regarding Shabbat it is so. (Tosafot 25b, end of the heading starting with "Chovah") Therefore, the sages said that one should not light a long time before Shabbat in a manner that it is then not recognizable at all that he does so for the honor of Shabbat. However, one should also not delay lighting until a short time before sunset, for then, Heaven forbid, he could stumble into a doubt of a prohibition involving stoning. And when do we say that he should not rush to light very early? When he does not wish to accept the addition to Shabbat now. But if he wished to accept the addition to Shabbat—he is permitted to light even while the day is yet large, for since he accepts Shabbat upon himself immediately—this is not considered an early lighting. Nevertheless, it appears that it should be from plag hamincha and onwards before sunset, which is an hour and a quarter hour at the time when the days and nights are equal. And the main thing is to be careful not to delay, Heaven forbid, and enter into the doubt of bein hashmashot, and fortunate is the portion of those who act early.

It is stated in the Gemara (23b): "Rava Huna said: One who is accustomed to the Shabbat candle will have children who are Torah scholars, as it is written: 'For a commandment is a candle and Torah is light,' through the candle of the commandment of Shabbat and Chanukah, the light of Torah comes." (Rashi, s.v. 'banim') Therefore, one should be careful to make a beautiful candle, and some intend to make two wicks: one corresponding to "Remember" and one corresponding to "Observe," and some make candles entwined with one another, as "Remember" and "Observe" were said in a single utterance, but among us the custom is not so. And we light each candle by itself, and one can light three or four candles or more, and so they have practiced, and some women have the custom to light seven candles and some ten. (Shelah) And they wrote that a woman who forgot one time to light the Shabbat candle shall always add one candle to what she was accustomed to until now, and if she forgot two times, she shall add two candles, and this is so that she penalizes herself in order that she be careful in this. Therefore, if she was under duress and was unable to light, she is exempt. (And what our teacher, the Rema, wrote, that when she forgets she lights three, his intention was when she previously lit two, as he is standing upon the words of the Mechaber to make two wicks.)

Just as on Shabbat one is commanded regarding the lighting of candles, so too on Yom Tov, for it is obvious that Yom Tov is a time of joy, and there is no joy without light. Therefore, she must recite the blessing: "Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe, Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to light the candle of Yom Tov." The Mordechai, the Or Zarua, and the Hagahot Maimoniot brought this from the Yerushalmi, but I have not found this in the Yerushalmi before us. Our women also recite the blessing of "Shehecheyanu" at the time of lighting the candles on Yom Tov, and one should not protest against them, for for the most part on the eve of Yom Tov they light at the actual onset of evening, and the "Shehecheyanu" refers to the Yom Tov. There are those who hesitate regarding this, but leave the daughters of Israel to their custom. And on Yom Kippur, there are those who recite the blessing and there are those who do not recite the blessing, and we are accustomed to recite the blessing, and it will be explained in siman 610, see there.

It is a known matter that all blessings must be prior to their performance, and according to this, they should have blessed prior to the lighting; nevertheless, the custom is not so, for they bless after the lighting. And the reason for the matter is because the lighting of the candles constitutes for them the acceptance of the addition of Shabbat, and the primary acceptance is the blessing, as will be explained. And according to this, if she were to bless and accept Shabbat—how would she be permitted in the lighting? And even though it is possible to bless and intend not to accept Shabbat upon herself, nevertheless, women are not accustomed to this and their minds are too limited to understand this; and furthermore, there is one who holds that a condition is not effective in this, as will be explained. Therefore, they light all the candles and afterwards they bless, and in order that it should be like "prior to their performance"—they cover their eyes with their hands after the lighting so that she does not benefit from the light, and they bless and afterwards remove their hands, and it is like "prior to their performance." And according to this, on Yom Tov when lighting is permitted, she should bless beforehand, so that it should be truly prior to its performance. (Derisha) And there is one who took issue with this, because of "do not distinguish." (Magen Avraham, subsection 12) And many disagreed with him, for behold Shabbat and Yom Tov are two different things, and so is the primary ruling. (And nevertheless, when a man blesses on the eve of Shabbat—he blesses prior to the lighting, and intends not to accept Shabbat; and they wrote that it is fitting for a woman to pray at the time of lighting that the Holy One, Blessed be He, give her sons who shine in Torah. And what the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 11 regarding the matter of a chuppah—he already took issue with this himself, and the best of paths when the chuppah is delayed is to light candles beforehand and afterwards perform the chuppah, and so we did once.)

The Bahag wrote that the acceptance of Shabbat depends on the lighting of the candle, for once one has lit the Shabbat candle, Shabbat has taken effect upon him. And his reasoning is because we have seen that the custom of the sages was that the final labor on the eve of Shabbat was the lighting of the candle, and certainly such was the enactment, that they should not perform any further labor after it; since the lighting is a labor for the purpose of a mitzvah for the need of Shabbat and it is an obligation, it is found to be like the beginning of the resting and like its acceptance, and one who lights the candle already resolves in his mind that he will not perform any labor after it, and you have no greater acceptance of Shabbat than this. (Ran, chapter 2) And when she lights many candles, her intention is until she finishes all the candles. And based on this, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 10 that because of this, some women have the custom that after they have lit the candles with a blessing, they cast to the ground the wick in their hand with which they lit, and they do not extinguish it. Thus far his words. And it appears that those women recited the blessing before the lighting, for if they were reciting the blessing afterward, they surely would have been able to extinguish it still before the blessing, for it is simple that before the blessing it is not yet the acceptance of Shabbat. And according to this, our women who recite the blessing after the lighting, as I wrote in the previous section, may certainly extinguish it and afterward they shall recite the blessing, and it seems to me that such is the custom and there is no hesitation regarding this.

And he wrote further: That there are those who say that if she stipulates before she lights that she does not accept Shabbat until the chazzan says Barechu—it is effective, and there are those who say it is not effective for her. And there are those who disagree with the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot and say that the acceptance of Shabbat is not dependent on the lighting of the candle but rather on the Maariv prayer, for once the chazzan says "Barechu"—everyone withdraws from their work. And for us, since they have begun "Mizmor Shir LeYom HaShabbat"—it is like "Barechu" for them, thus far his words, and for us "Lecha Dodi" is the acceptance of Shabbat, as I wrote at the end of siman 261. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote on this: And the custom is that the woman who lights accepts Shabbat with the lighting, unless she stipulated beforehand, and even a stipulation in the heart suffices, but the rest of the household members are permitted to do work until "Barechu." And the primary lighting is dependent on the candle on the table and not on the other candles in the house. And one must place the candles in the place where they light, and not light in this place and place them in another place, thus far his words, and their words require explanation.

And it appears to me that this is the explanation: For behold, according to the opinion of the Ba'ag, the lighting of the candles constitutes the acceptance of Shabbat for all members of the household, for the reason we explained in section 14. And just as the acceptance of "Mizmor Shir L'Yom HaShabbat" constitutes an acceptance for everyone when the majority of the city has accepted it through their recitation, as will be explained, so too the sages instituted that in every house where they lit candles, it constitutes the acceptance of Shabbat for all members of the household. However, a condition is effective; and why should it not be effective, since she explicitly stipulates that her intention is not to accept Shabbat with this lighting? Nevertheless, there are those who say that a condition is not effective, and the reason is that since there is a berakhah involved, the berakhah perforce brings them into the sanctity of Shabbat, since she mentions "to light the candle of Shabbat," and if not so, it would be as a berakhah in vain. (See Beit Yosef in the name of the Kol Bo) And another reason appears to me: that since according to the Ba'ag this was an enactment of the sages that the lighting of the candle should be the final labor in order that the acceptance of Shabbat be through this—an individual does not have the power to remove themselves from this by means of their condition. And all of this is according to the system of the Ba'ag.

However, the Tur, in the name of the Tosafot and the Ramban, disagreed with the Ba'ag regarding the essence of the matter, and they hold that the matter of lighting the candle was never for the purpose of accepting Shabbat; we also find that after lighting the candle they would insulate the hot food and remove the tefillin. (See Shabbat 35b according to Rav Nachman there, and see there in the Ran in the name of the Ramban, that even the roasting of fish was after that, and see there in the Tosafot. This opinion holds that lighting the candle was a labor among the labors that they prepared for Shabbat, and therefore even according to the one who holds in the Gemara that it was the final labor—it is also not a matter of accepting Shabbat. And if it is because of the berakhah, what of it? The berakhah is over the enactment that they enacted to light a candle of Shabbat, and what does this have to do with the acceptance of Shabbat?)

The custom that our teacher, the Rema, wrote is like a compromise between the opinions, for certainly for all members of the household—the lighting of the candle is not a matter of accepting Shabbat, but the woman who lights herself, since she recites the blessing and mentions Shabbat—she has presumably accepted upon herself the addition of Shabbat, unless she explicitly stipulated otherwise, and even in the heart it suffices. And also the primary obligation is regarding the candles on the table, for even though there is an obligation to light all the candles, even in rooms where they do not eat as I have written, nevertheless the primary ones are those candles on the table before which they eat the Shabbat meal, for in them there is the honor of Shabbat as I have written. And that which he wrote: not to light in this place and place it in another place—we have already explained this in section 10, that it is like the Chanukah candle which requires the lighting to be in its place. And what is called "its place"—the place where it is his will that the candle shall stand there during the night. And it appears that within one room from this place to that place—it is not called a change of place. However, the place of eating is the primary thing, and one must recite the blessing with the Name specifically over those candles that will stand at the time of the meal. (See Magen Avraham subsection 23, and what appears to my humble opinion I have written, and examine it closely) And one should not ask how she may move the candles after the lighting, for it can be said that another person may move them, or she herself by means of a stipulation. (See Magen Avraham subsection 22)

Even though for lighting a condition is effective according to most poskim, even according to the opinion of the Ba'ag that lighting constitutes the acceptance of Shabbat as has been explained—nevertheless, for prayer a condition is not effective. For example, if an individual preceded and prayed the Shabbat prayer while it was still day, even though the congregation has not yet prayed—nevertheless, the acceptance of Shabbat has taken effect upon him, and immediately he is forbidden from performing melacha, even if he says that he does not want to accept Shabbat. For since he prayed the Maariv of Shabbat and recited the blessing "Who sanctifies the Shabbat"—against his will he has accepted Shabbat upon himself, and this is like one who says at night: "I do not want to accept Shabbat." And it appears to me that in such cases, even if it were before plag hamincha—against his will he has accepted the Shabbat upon himself. And although it was explained in siman 261 and likewise in siman 267 that one should not make the addition before plag hamincha, see there, certainly ab initio one should not do so, but if he did so, who shall protest against him? For do we have a measure for the addition such that we should say that prior to then it is not effective? And I saw one who wrote that this is specifically from plag hamincha (see Mishna Berura), and these are puzzling words. But with the recitation of "A Psalm, a Song for the Shabbat day" or "Lecha Dodi"—ordinarily it constitutes the acceptance of Shabbat. However, when he said explicitly that he does not want to accept Shabbat—it is effective, for there is no prayer or blessing in vain here. And likewise if he said this before plag hamincha—it is possible that it is not an acceptance (according to the Magen Avraham in siman 261, subsection 10, in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham). But regarding prayer—it is simple that it constitutes an acceptance, and so we find among the early authorities who would pray Maariv about three hours before nightfall, and they accepted the Shabbat upon themselves. (See Terumat HaDeshen siman 1 and Shevut Yaakov part 2 siman 20)

If the majority of the congregation in the beit din has accepted Shabbat upon themselves—meaning they have said "Lecha Dodi"—and it was after plag hamincha, even the minority who were not in the beit knesset are drawn after them and are forbidden from performing melakha, for the general rule is that the minority is drawn after the majority. However, another beit knesset is not drawn after this beit knesset, and even if the one that already accepted Shabbat is the largest in the city, nevertheless, every beit knesset is considered a community unto itself regarding this matter. Therefore, one who comes to the beit knesset while the congregation is accepting Shabbat and saying "Lecha Dodi," and he has not yet prayed mincha, he should not pray mincha in that beit knesset, since the sanctity of Shabbat has taken effect there; rather, he should go outside the beit knesset to the courtyard or an adjacent room and pray mincha there, and afterward enter the beit knesset and accept Shabbat. And one should not say: how can he pray the weekday prayer when the sanctity of Shabbat has also taken effect upon him? For it can be said that it took effect upon him for stringency, to forbid him from melakha, but not for leniency, to exempt him from the weekday prayer. Therefore, this applies specifically when he did not accept Shabbat with them; but if he did not pay attention to the fact that he had not yet prayed mincha and accepted Shabbat with them, he has personally accepted Shabbat upon himself, and it is forbidden for him to pray the weekday prayer; rather, he should pray the Arvit of Shabbat twice, according to the law of one who forgot and did not pray in siman 108, see there.

And this is when he arrives during the congregation's saying of "Lecha Dodi." But if he arrives beforehand, even at the time of the saying of the psalms before Lecha Dodi that they are accustomed to say—he may pray mincha even though he knows that his prayer will extend until after the acceptance of Shabbat, since he began with permission. And there is one who says specifically if he thought that he would finish before the acceptance of Shabbat, but if he knows that he will not finish—he should not begin. (Taz, subsection 2) And it does not appear so, for this is not among the prohibitions where one may not begin to pray, but rather a mere stringency, (and so it appears in Magen Avraham, subsection 29, and so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 37) and such is the primary ruling. However, in such a case, if he wishes, he may go out and pray in another place, but he is not compelled to do so.

According to what has been explained, that the individual is drawn after the majority of his beit knesset, according to this it is necessary to doubt if in the beit knesset where he prays they have already accepted Shabbat, and he is still in his home and forbidden from melacha, if the members of his household are also forbidden from melacha, and if they have not lit candles in his home—are they still forbidden to light, as they are drawn after the master of the house, or perhaps only he is forbidden from melacha, but the members of his household are permitted. And one should not compare this to what was explained in section 18, that the woman who lit candles accepted Shabbat and all the members of her household are permitted in melacha, for the woman is not considered the primary figure such that the members of her household would be drawn after her. But the man, it is possible that the members of his household are drawn after him. And the law requires further study, for perhaps this is like a "drawing of a drawing," as he is drawn after his beit knesset and they are drawn after him, and we do not say "drawing of a drawing," similar to what is found in Shabbat regarding the liability for a chatat. (71a) However, this is certain, that if the majority of the city has already accepted Shabbat—then all the minority, whether men or women, are forbidden from melacha, and if they have not lit candles—they should light by means of a non-Jew.

Even a guest who arrives in a city on the eve of Shabbat toward evening, and the people of the city have already accepted Shabbat upon themselves—in that they have said "Lecha Dodi"—he is immediately forbidden from performing melacha even though it is still broad daylight. And if he had money on him or other objects that are muktzeh, he may not move them; rather, he enters a room and lets them fall by means of moving them from the side. And this is when it was after plag ha-mincha, and despite all this, he is permitted to pray the weekday mincha, as I have written in section 20. And a story is written in Shibbolei HaLeket concerning Rabbi Avraham and Rabbi Yaakov his brother, who arrived in a city after the congregation had left the synagogue, and they did not greet them with peace nor did they allow them to enter the synagogue the next day. And on Sunday they decreed upon them fasts of fifty consecutive days, and to complete these three days with fasts and lashes. And they further decreed upon them to give from their money for the redemption of their souls to the tzedaka fund, etc., see there. (Beit Yosef)

And if the community accepted Shabbat upon themselves in error, such as when it was a cloudy day and they thought it was close to nightfall, and they lit candles and prayed the evening prayer of Shabbat, and afterwards the clouds dispersed and the sun shone and it was still significantly day: if when they prayed it was from plag hamincha and onwards—they do not need to return and pray the evening prayer, for we do not burden the community (Berakhot 27b). But if it is an individual who erred in this—he must return and pray the evening prayer. And regarding the performance of melakha—both the community and the individual are permitted, since the acceptance was in error. And some say that an acceptance in error by a community is considered an acceptance, for since we do not burden them to return and pray—consequently their prayer is a prayer and they are forbidden from melakha. Therefore, those who lit candles—are forbidden from melakha, but the minority is not drawn after them, and those who did not light and did not pray—are permitted. (So it appears to me to explain that first "some say" in section 14, and according to what the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 26, and the words of the Taz in subsection 1 are not understood; and examine this closely.)

Regarding the law of the error that has been explained, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote at the end of section 14: There are those who say that this lamp which was lit for the sake of Shabbat—it is forbidden to touch it or to add oil to it, and even if it was extinguished, it is forbidden to move it. Thus far his words. And it is not understood at all, for why should it be forbidden to touch it, add oil, or move it for one who has not yet accepted Shabbat? And he himself already wondered about this in his great work; see there. And there is one who says that this opinion maintains that an acceptance in error is considered a valid acceptance, as has been written, and therefore this lamp was set aside for its mitzvah. And that which is forbidden to touch—for we decree lest one make use of it. (Magen Avraham, subsection 27) And there is no reason for this, for from where do we have the authority to decree so, and why should he not add oil to it? And in my humble opinion, it appears that they did not approach this from the prohibition of muktzeh, but rather to say that even though we hold that a consecration in error is not a consecration, nevertheless, since we do not burden the community, and we say that their acceptance is a valid acceptance, it follows that this lamp was set aside for its mitzvah—and therefore it is forbidden to use it for a mundane use until the conclusion of Shabbat. And his intention is that it is forbidden to touch it or add oil to it for a mundane use, and even if it was extinguished, it is forbidden to move it for a mundane use until the conclusion of Shabbat. And so too, one who lit lamps for Shabbat and made a condition that he is still not accepting Shabbat—nevertheless, the lamps were set aside for their mitzvah, and they are forbidden to be used for a mundane use, whether by him or by others. (Pri Megadim)

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 17: "There are those who say that one who accepted Shabbat upon himself before it became dark—it is permitted for him to tell his fellow Israelite to perform labor for him, and it is permitted for him to benefit from that labor on Shabbat, and certainly on the conclusion of Shabbat. And one who delays praying on the conclusion of Shabbat or who continues his meal into the night—it is permitted to tell his fellow Israelite, who has already prayed and recited Havdalah, to perform labor for him, to kindle candles for him and to cook for him, and it is permitted to benefit and eat from his labor." Thus far their words. And there are two reasons for this: The first is that since he himself had the ability to be permitted in this—such as on the eve of Shabbat, for if he desired he would not have accepted Shabbat yet, and on the conclusion of Shabbat, for if he desired he could have recited Havdalah himself—and whenever he has a means of permission for himself, he may tell his fellow, and there is no prohibition of "speech" regarding a rabbinic restriction in this. And as they said in the Gemara (150b): It is permitted for a person to say to his fellow, "To such-and-such a town I am going tomorrow," for if there are huts there, he may go, as I have written below in siman 307; see there. And another reason: for we do not find the prohibition of "speech" regarding a rabbinic restriction except in a matter that is forbidden to all Israelites. But in a matter that is permitted to the second person, such as in these cases, why should he not say to his fellow a matter that is permitted to him? (Taz, subsection 3). And from the perspective of the first reason, the conclusion of Shabbat is more lenient than the eve of Shabbat; for on the eve of Shabbat, granted that he could have not accepted Shabbat yet, nevertheless now he has no permission. But on the conclusion of Shabbat, behold, it is in his power at any moment to say "Hamavdil," and he is permitted to perform labor as I wrote in siman 299. (Magen Avraham, subsection 31). And there is one who wishes to disagree with this law, and his words were rejected. (See Taz and Derishah and Bach, who rejected the words of the Levush who disagrees on this). And it is simple that if he said "Hamavdil" in the middle of the meal, he is permitted to perform labor, but it requires further study whether it would be in his power to say "Retzei" in Birkat HaMazon. (Ibid., subsection 33).

And know, that even though regarding the eve of Shabbat it was explained that the minority is drawn after the majority when the majority has accepted Shabbat upon themselves—nevertheless, on the conclusion of Shabbat it is not so, for even if the entire city continues [Shabbat] long into the night, it is nevertheless within the power of the individual to pray and recite havdalah and perform melakhah. (Pri Megadim) And the reason seems to me to be that this is like the eve of Shabbat before plag ha-minchah, where the minority is not drawn after [the majority] as I have written, and the same law applies on the conclusion of Shabbat when the time of the weekday has already arrived, for there is no reason for their addition.

There is one who wishes to say that according to the first reason in section 26, that if he desired he would not have accepted Shabbat, that if he is from a synagogue that has already accepted Shabbat and he also accepted with them—that it is forbidden for him to tell a person from another synagogue to perform melakhah for him, because in such a case the reason of "if he desired he would not have accepted" is not applicable, for the individual is drawn after the community. (Machatzit HaShekel) And this is not at all clear, for since there exists only the reality that he could not accept—it is permitted, and here too, if he desired, he could have gone to another synagogue. And there is also one who wishes to say that one who accepts Shabbat early is included in the category of a vow, and can annul it. (Levush in the gloss) And these are astonishing words, for since we hold that according to most poskim tosefet Shabbat is from the Torah, and there is no measure for the addition, if so, this person who made a large addition—is it not the law of the Torah? And I have not seen this matter in any posek, and therefore one should not rely on this in practice. And it is simple that one should not wait for a great man in the synagogue when he has not yet arrived, nor for any matter in the world. (In Magen Avraham subsection 30 a mistake occurred, and what he wrote there "close to the synagogue," should say "close to bein hashemashot." And what he wrote afterward "it is better etc.," his intention is to say that there were places that waited and said it is better etc. And he wrote that this is only in a place of permission, meaning when they pray in a minyan. But in a synagogue—we do not say it is better that they be unintentional etc., and one must protest against them so that they do not wait for one who has not prepared his food, even if it is not close to bein hashemashot, and delve into this.)