Women’s obligation in the mitzva of the Chanuka lights
Author: Rav Duvdevani of Bet Shemesh, Kislev 5765/Dec 2004It might be thought that women have no obligation because the mitzvah of lighting lights on Chanuka is a positive commandment linked to a specific time (cf the first talk in this series). However, our Sages do not place it in that category.
Rav Duvdevani examined a number of questions:
Do women light Chanuka lights?
Can women’s lighting suffice if no men are present? Can women exempt men from their obligation in this mitzvah?
A number of considerations determine the line of thought in the sources:
1. A comparison of the mitzvah of Chanuka lighting with the mitzvah of the Megilla reading on Purim.
2. The function of Chanuka lighting to publicise the miracle (pirsumei nisa).
3. The fact that women were also present at the miracle (af hen hayu be oto ha nes).
4. One or more sets of Chanuka lights per household (ish u beito).
5. The status of lighting where several members of a household light.
We learn from the Gemara (Shabat 23A) that the mitzvah of Chanuka is the lighting itself and that ‘a woman certainly lights; as R Yehoshua ben Levi said: they too were present at the miracle’(af hen hayu be oto a nes). Tosafot (on Tractate Megilla 4A) add that this reason is Rabbinical. Rav Soloveitchik explains that the benediction ‘al ha nissim’(who performed miracles) indicates that this is so. He adds that while remembering the miracle is basic, our lights, too, impact on darkness and thus we have not only a symbol of past events; we are participating in the function of Chanuka itself (Sefer Horerei Kedem).
Maimonides (Hilchot Megilla ve Chanuka, 1) takes up the comparison of Chanuka lighting with the reading of the Megilla. Women are included in the obligation of the reading of the Megilla and, to fulfil this mitzvah on Purim, one needs to hear the Megilla read by someone obligated in that reading, as women are. The implication would seem to be that, since women are obligated in the Chanuka lighting, they can act on behalf of others.
Tosafot (on Sukka 38A) also look as at the reading of the Megilla, stating that women’s reading does not exempt men, since the reading is a public one (cf earlier talk on public reading of the Torah). However, since the Chanuka lighting takes place in the home, that constraint is not there,
We now come to the question of lighting in the home (ish u beito). The Gemara (Shabbat 23A tells the story of R.Zeira on a visit to Rav on Chanuka. R. Zeira thought to pay his host a peruta towards the cost of the oil for lighting. This, however, was not called for. R.Zera’s obligation was fulfilled by the fact that, in his own house, the lights were being lit while he was not there. Lights on Chanuka shine from the house; they are not personal, like tefilin or lulav.
Rav Soloveitchik explains the mitzvah further. If one person lights on Chanuka, that person is not doing it on behalf of the others, but for the house (ish u beito).The others have fulfilled their obligation because they are part of that household.
It became accepted Ashkenazi practice to perform the mitzvah of Chanuka lighting in the best possible way (mehadrin min ha mehadrin).; each member of the household performs the mitzvah (Responsa of Maharshal, 85). We read in the Responsa of the Geonim that each and every one lit on Chanuka (ner le kol achat ve echad). Using the feminine ‘achat’ and the masculine ‘echad’ spells out that this included the women.
Women clearly have an obligation in the mitzvah of Chanuka lights. As the Rashbam has it (Tosafot on Tractate Megilla 4A), women were essential in the miraculous events both on Purim, with Esther and with Judith on Chanuka.
Listening to a woman’s voice
Author: Rav Duvdevani of Bet Shemesh, Tevet 5765/Dec 2004Kol be isha erva, (listening to the) voice of a woman is indecent. This phrase is the source of some controversy. Is speech or singing involved? Does the injunction not to listen apply under certain circumstances specifically? Is there a Rabbinical prohibition or is the injunction Biblical? Rabbi Duvdevani examined these questions in the light of a number of sources.
Tractate Berakhot (24A) examines the propriety of a man reciting the Shema in bed together with members of his family in a state of undress. This is unacceptable. Shmuel adds: kol be isha erva because Scripture sates ‘for sweet is your voice…’, a statement made by the lover in the Song of Songs, declaring how attractive the maiden is. The man reciting the Shema needs to make sure that he does not see impropriety, the nakedness of his wife and older children, not even the hair of his wife, nor even hear her voice. This is not seen as a question of modesty but of respect towards the Almighty. The point is reinforced by a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Challa (2, 48), where the woman is reciting the blessing over taking ‘challa’ from dough before she is dressed. The situation is specific, an injunction not to recite a prayer while seeing or hearing that woman who is not dressed reciting her blessing.
A somewhat surprising extension of such impropriety appears in Tractate Kiddushin (70A), where asking about the welfare of Yalta, a woman, calls forth the response: kol be isha erva by Shmuel.
Maimonides restates the prohibitions (Hilchot Issurei Biya,21) but links them to sexual impropriety. It is not an absolute prohibition, since there are occasions when it is proper to see a woman. Rav Duvdevani explained that Maimonides saw the injunction as a Torah fence – not a Rabbinical one - around the law basic to the Torah, as in the commandment not to envy even anything belonging to your neighbour because of what this might lead to.
Shmuel’s phrase is discussed in a number of sources. Piskei Mordechai, on Berakhot, mentions that it is the sound of a woman’s voice singing that is referred to; Beit Shmuel, on the Shulchan Aruch agrees that the Gemara is concerned about a situation where prayers are being said, adding that the statement about Yalta in Kiddushin really refers to an intimate conversation, not a simple asking about someone’s well -being.
The question now arises, is the injunction Biblical or Rabbinical? If it is Biblical, it is unconditional; if it is Rabbinical, decisions in different times and places may vary. The Mishna Brura (75,17) states that it is not Biblical. The text adds that the Shema may not be recited when listening to a woman sing – unless, that is, one happens to be passing through a non-Jewish place. Rav Ovadia Yosef ,too,states that he has seen the prohibition referred to as Rabbinical. Like several other commentators, he sees the controversial phrase as referring to the recital of the Shema specifically. Moreover, he, like the Maharam Schik, makes the distinction between a woman who is present and one whose voice is heard, as on a recording. Rav Duvdevani explained, by citing the case of hearing the Megilla read on a recording –that would not count as ‘hearing’ the Megilla.
An interesting Gemara (Sota 48A) raises the question of chanting responses of prayers. If men chant and women respond, that is ‘frivolous’; where women chant and men respond, that is ‘a burning fire’. Rashi comments that this does not refer to two prohibitions, the second being there as the extreme reprehensible situation.
As regards men and women singing religious songs together, we see that the Sridei Eish of Yehiel Weinberg in post holocaust France permitted it, as did Hildesheimer and S.R.Hirsch in Germany, since a woman’s voice is not an issue then and the purpose is praise of the Almighty.
In all cases, the sources agree that a voice with sexual innuendo outside of marriage is unacceptable and a situation where this is likely has to be avoided. In prayer, even the voice of a man’s wife should not distract him. Custom varies as to what constitutes a situation leading to something inappropriate. Women’s self respect and respect for sanctity will also determine how they understand kol be isha erva.
Rosh Chodesh (New Moon), Women’s Holiday
Author: Rav Duvdevani of Bet Shemesh, Tevet 5765/Dec 2004Does the custom have sanctity or is it idolatrous?
The beginning of each new month, Rosh Chodesh, has always had a special status, special sacrifices and, later, a special Musaf service. It has long standing, historical links with women and we have a number of references to the custom that women do no work on Rosh Chodesh. In this talk, Rav Duvdevani examined sources that reflect the views of our Sges on a minhag, a custom, that is special to women.
Eliahu Schatzi, writing in the 16th century in Kudsha, a place where half the Jewish population were Karaites, criticises the custom of women not working on Rosh Chodesh. The text accuses them of ‘adding to the Law’. It was thought that this minhag was connected to past idolatrous practices relating to the dark, moonless beginning of the month.
The Jerusalem Talmud (Tractate Ta’anit 1,6), on the other hand, sees the minhag as accepted and legitimate, comparing it to the custom of not working on other days, such as days when the ‘eruv’, the Sabbath boundary, was fixed, a custom it rejects.
Hezekiah DaSilva, in the 17th century, confirms that the women’s custom is ‘a good minhag’.
Other scholars also saw a connection to the phases of the moon, but of a very different kind. The renewal of the moon was seen by them as a symbol of the renewing relationship of a wife to her husband. (16th century R.Yehoshua Valk on Tur, Orach Chayim 417,1) . It was for this reason, we learn, that the Rosh Chodesh was given to women (Sefer Or Zaru’a, 2)
Several texts take this connection further and link the Almighty’s releasing Rachel, wife of Jacob, from her barrenness, to this renewal of the woman’s relationship with her husband. ‘Roshei CHodashim Le amecha natati, I gave the New Moon to your people’ indicates the link, where the initials in the phrase spell the name RaCHeL. (R.Chayim Vital; also R.Yosef Chayim David Azulai). An even earlier hint linking Rachel and the moon appears in the second of Joseph’s dreams (Genesis, 37), where the sun (Jacob), the moon (Rachel) and eleven stars (the brothers) are seen as bowing down to Joseph.
That the women’s connection to Rosh Chodesh is clearly Biblical is seen in 2Kings, (ch.4), the story of the Shunamite woman, whose son is brought back to life by Elisha. When the woman runs to call Elisha, her husband comments: ‘Why do you go to him [Elisha] to-day? It is neither New Moon nor Sabbath’ (v.23). The inference here is that the Shunamite, like other women, usually went to learn Torah on those days. Indeed, the custom that men listen to the teachings of their Rabbis on those days is seen to be based on that same verse (Tractate Sukka 27B), the Shunamite woman being the model for the men’s attendance.
A number of Midrashic sources give a more spiritual explanation for the gift of Rosh Chodesh to women: the fact that they refused to give their jewellery when Aaron made the golden calf (Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer). neshei dor ha midbar kesherot hayu, the women of the desert generation were ‘kosher’, worthy (Vayika Rabba, ch 2). The Almighty gave the Rosh Chodesh to women, writes R. Yosef of Bagdad; the woman is the foundation on which the world is built, the ‘even’, the foundation stone, as we see from the verse in Hallel ‘even maasu ha bonim, hayeta le rosh pina, the stone rejected by the builders has become the chief cornerstone’.
An early Ashkenazi source, the Ravan, (Seder Rosh Chodesh) adds that women did give their jewels towards the building of the Tabernacle. It was their merit that they ‘had no part in the sin of the golden calf, lo hayu be oto ha chata’. One should compare that phrase, Rav Duvdevani explained, to the women’s obligation on Chanuka when ‘they were part of the miracle, hayu be oto ha nes.’Rosh Chodesh was originally given to the whole people; after the sin of the golden calf it became the gift special to women.
It is clear from the sources examined that the minhag of women not working on Rosh Chodesh was accepted. Our Sages saw the women’s special day, the Rosh Chodesh, as the reward for denying their jewels to the golden calf and offering them for the Tabernacle. That their reward was the renewing New Moon was seen as being the appropriate symbol of their function in the renewal of life.