[KollelH blog] 12/14/2012 01:16:00 PM

Why Are Women Exempt From Saying Hallel On Chanukah?

Note to readers: This article is dedicated to the refuah sheleimah of Shlomo Eliezer ben Chaya Sarah Elka.

There are two mitzvos that the rabbanan instituted for Chanukah, lighting candles and saying Hallel. The Gemara in Shabbos 23a says that women are obligated in the mitzvah of lighting candles because af ha'eim hayu b'osah haness – they too were involved in the miracle.

It is implicit from the Rambam, in Hilchos Chanukah 3:14, that women are exempt from the mitzvah of saying Hallel on Chanukah. Many Acharonim were bothered by a simple question: the Gemara in Shabbos 23a says that women are obligated in the mitzvah of lighting candles on Chanukah as a result of: af ha'eim hayu b'osah haness. Why then should they not be obligated in the mitzvah of Hallel? To make the question stronger, some Acharonim point to Tosafos in Sukkah 38a (d"h me) that says that women are obligated in the mitzvah of Hallel on Pesach because of the rule of af ha'eim hayu b'osah haness. Why then should they be exempt from the mitzvah of Hallel on Chanukah?

The sefer, Sdei Chemed, quotes from Reb Sholmo HaKohen from Vilna that in truth women are obligated in the mitzvah of Hallel on Chanukah – but are not obligated in saying the entire version that Chazal instituted. They can fulfill their obligation by reciting one short paragraph that mentions praise to Hashem for the miracles. This idea is similar to the opinion of the Rambam, who says that one is obligated min haTorah to daven once every day. However, one need not daven the Shemoneh Esrei to fulfill this obligation; rather one can simply make one bakashah to fulfill his obligation.

Not all, however, welcomed this answer for several reasons. First, we do not find that it is mentioned anywhere that women are obligated to say Hallel. The Rambam writes that they cannot be motzi a man in his obligation, and does not differentiate whether they had earlier said one line of Hallel. Second, the Beis Yosef writes that women should not recite a berachah on Hallel on Chanukah. If they are indeed obligated and they are saying the version that Chazal instituted, why should they not recite a berachah as they do on Pesach?

Tosafos in numerous places inquires why women are not obligated in several different mitzvos as a result of the rule of af ha'eim hayu b'osah haness. In Megillah 4a, for example, Tosafos asks why women are not obligated to eat matzah on Pesach as a result of the rule of af ha'eim hayu b'osah haness. So why does the Gemara need to find a drasha that obligates them? Also, Tosafos (Sukkah 108b) asks why women are exempt from the mitzvah of sukkah when the pasuk in Vayikra 23:43 says that we have the mitzvah of sukkah as a result of Hashem's miracle of making sukkos for us in the desert. Thus, they should be obligated as a result of the same rule of af ha'eim hayu b'osah haness.

Several Acharonim ask why women are not obligated in the mitzvah of tefillin. The pasuk in Shemos 13:9 says that we wear tefillin because Hashem took us out of Mitzrayim. Based on that, women should be obligated in the mitzvah of tefillin as a result of af ha'eim hayu b'osah haness.

The Sefer Harirai Kedem quotes an amazing explanation from Reb Moshe Soloveitchik that answers all of these questions, including the original one regarding Hallel on Chanukah. He explains that there is a difference between when a mitzvah's essence is to publicize the miracle and when the reason why we are obligated is to remember a miracle. There are only three times when the Gemara says that women are obligated in mitzvos as a result of the rule of af ha'eim hayu b'osah haness: lighting candles on Chanukah, reading the Megillah on Purim, and drinking four cups of wine on Pesach. All three of these mitzvos' essence is to publicize the miracle associated with that holiday. The mitzvos of sukkah, matzah and tefillin are all connected to miracles; however, they are merely a remembrance of the miracles. The essence of these mitzvos is not to publicize the miracle (pirsumei nissa). The only time that the rule of af ha'eim hayu b'osah haness can obligate one in a mitzvah is when the essence of the mitzvah is to publicize the miracle. Since the essence of the mitzvos of sukkah, matzah and tefillin are not pirsumei nissa, the rule of af ha'eim hayu b'osah haness cannot obligate women in those mitzvos.

The mitzvah to recite Hallel that Chazal instituted regarding Chanukah was in fact a direct result of the miracle of Chanukah; however, its essence is not to publicize the miracle but rather to give thanks for the miracle. On the other hand, the mitzvah of lighting candles was instituted in order to publicize the miracle. Therefore we can apply the rule of af ha'eim hayu b'osah haness – thereby obligating women in the mitzvah of lighting candles but not in the mitzvah of saying Hallel on Chanukah.

For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.


--
Posted By KH to KollelH blog at 12/14/2012 01:16:00 PM

[Tinsights.....Torah insights] 11/21/2012 12:25:00 PM

A short wife needs not to be stretched... As One, the height of her husband may fill in her gap.

--
Posted By Ploni to Tinsights.....Torah insights at 11/21/2012 12:25:00 PM

[KollelH blog] Chayei sarah

there is a well known "stirah" between Avraham telling the bnei ches "ger v'toshav", which Rashi explains he claimed rights to the land. & yet in lech l'cha - "vayehi riv", rashi says that LOT's shepherds believed they had rights but Avraham argued that for now (till the cna'ani are gone) it was not yet his to have any claim?

Maran answered 'ein kinyan L'akum b'eretz yisrael" (gittin 47a) to absolve mitzvos but "yesh kinyan" to dig up the land... Meaning that the monetary kinyan over the land & the spiritual kinyan is split.

Similarly, the invauable me'oras hamachpelah wasn't a mekach ta'us b/c Efron only had access & ownership to the material monetary value. (Zohar)

Therefore we can say the cna'anim only had monetary rights so long as they were there... In lech l'cha the dispute was just regarding money grazing in others' fields. That Avraham did not allow. But here the malbim (& others) point out thet Avraham specifically made a public spectacle & numerous announcements that he was purchasing the land for kevurah - this was a spiritual endeavor - both on a personal level & as a lesson for mankind about the afterlife & appropriate regard for the body after the neshamah departs. Regarding this an akum does not own eretz yisrael, & Avraham had a claim.

We see that in one item it is possible to have a completely divided ownership, between the material & the spiritual.

In the aftermath of Sandy the mashgiach shlitah asked me with a tone of critique "nu & what was with our na'anu'im?" - of course Sandy was not a punishment for a lack of proper lulav shaking, but whtever sandy was for, we know that the shaking of lulav should protect against destructive winds.... - so what was with them?
Surely we shook the the lulav as described in halacha, but perhaps it was just the material shaking without "RUACH".

Perhaps we can try to instill positive "ruach" into our mitzvos & even more specifically - we can surely add a good dose of ruach to thanking Hashem in modim anachnu, that we've been spared the brunt of the storm.

May the strong infuence of positive Ruach into all of our deeds prevent any more Ruchos Ra'os from coming upon the world.

--
Posted By KH to KollelH blog at 11/12/2012 01:35:00 AM

[KollelH blog] 10/26/2012 04:25:00 PM

Who Performed Avraham's Bris?

In this week's parshah Hashem commands Avraham Avinu to perform the mitzvah of bris milah. The pasuk tells us that Avraham was 99 when he performed the bris milah on himself. The Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (29) and Tosafos, in Rosh Hashanah 11a, say that Avraham's bris was performed on Yom Kippur. The Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer adds that Shem, Noach's son, performed the bris on Avraham. There are several explanations as to why Avraham had Shem perform his milah.

Some opinions suggest that since the milah was to be performed on Yom Kippur, Avraham did not want to perform the milah himself since this would violate the laws of Yom Kippur. One may only perform a milah on Shabbos or Yom Tov if the bris is on the eighth day. Since Avraham's milah was not on the eighth day after he was born, it was considered not in the proper time – and thus Avraham could not perform the milah. Since Shem, however, did not keep the Torah he could perform the milah. Therefore Avraham asked Shem to perform the milah.

But there is a medrash (Bereishis 49:2) that says that Avraham asked Hashem as to who would perform the milah on him. Hashem told Avraham that he should do it himself. Avraham immediately took a knife and was about to cut, but hesitated because he was worried about his age. Hashem sent His hand and held onto Avraham – and Avraham cut. The medrash's source for this is the well-known pasuk from p'sukei d'zimra: "vecharos imo ha'bris- and he cut with him the bris."

As according to Tosafos and the Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer the milah took place on Yom Kippur, we must then ask the following: since according to the medrash that says that Avraham performed the milah together with Hashem, how can this have been done on Yom Kippur – since Avraham kept the entire Torah even prior to matan Torah?

This question is based on the assumption that the milah of Avraham Avinu was considered "shelo bizmano – not in the correct time." For if it was the correct time (the eighth day of a boy's life) then one is permitted to perform a bris on Shabbos and Yom Tov. There are some Acharonim (the Yehudah Yaleh in Yoreh De'ah 254 and the Sdei Chemed, 7:2) who answer that, in fact, Avraham Avinu's bris was considered to be done on time since he performed it on the day that he was commanded to perform it. Even though he was 99 years old, the bris was still considered to be on time and therefore permitted to be performed on Yom Kippur. Other Acharonim suggest that the reason Avraham's bris was considered on time was because the commandment was for him to perform the bris on that very day, as the pasuk says: "b'etzem hayom hazeh, nimol Avraham v'Yishmael b'no – on that very day, Avraham and his son Yishmael were circumcised." Since the bris was performed at the intended time, it was considered to have been done on time – and permitted to have been done on Yom Kippur.

Yet this is not the general understanding. Most consider the bris of Avraham Avinu to be shelo bizmano and therefore not permitted to be performed on Yom Kippur. It is quoted in the name of Rabbi Meir Soloveitchik, shlita, that it is for this reason that there is no mention that Avraham made a seudah by his or any of his household's bris milah – with the exception of Yitzchak. This is because the Sha'arei Teshuvah (551:31) says that one only should make a seudah for a bris that is on time. We only find that Avraham made a seudah for Yitzchak's bris because that was the only bris that was performed on time.

Another solution is that even though Avraham kept the entire Torah (as the Gemara says), certain discrepancies existed. Generally a bris milah that is not on time is not allowed to be performed on Shabbos or Yom Tov. However, since Avraham was not yet commanded to keep the Torah – and, for that matter, he was not commanded to keep Shabbos or Yom Tov – they were treated differently concerning this matter. Since they were not yet commanded to keep Shabbos or Yom Tov before matan Torah, a bris could be performed on Shabbos or Yom Tov even if it was not on time. Thus Avraham was allowed to perform his bris on Yom Kippur.

I would like to suggest another explanation that answers the question of how Avraham was able to perform the bris on Yom Kippur according to the medrash that says that Shem did not perform the bris. The medrash says that Hashem sent His hand and helped Avraham cut. The halacha is that when two people do a melachah together they are not liable on Shabbos or Yom Tov. Therefore, since Avraham performed the bris together with Hashem he did not violate the laws of Yom Kippur.

For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.


--
Posted By KH to KollelH blog at 10/26/2012 04:25:00 PM