YESHIVAT HAR ETZION

ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)

*********************************************************

WOMEN AND HALAKHA

Rav Chaim Navon

For easy printing, go to:

www.vbm-torah.org/archive/womenandmitzvot/25womenandmitzvot.htm

SHIUR 25: WOMEN AND CHANUKA CANDLES

I. MEHADRIN MIN HA-MEHADRIN

The mitzva of lighting Chanuka candles is discussed in a famous

Talmudic passage:

Our Rabbis taught: The mitzva of Chanuka [requires] one light for a
man and his household; the scrupulous [kindle] a light for each
member [of the household]; and [regarding] the extremely scrupulous,
Beit Shammai maintain: On the first day eight lights are lit and
thereafter [their number is] gradually reduced; but Beit Hillel say: On
the first day one is lit and thereafter [their number is] progressively
increased. (Shabbat 21b)

The Gemara presents here, in an exceptional manner that we do not find in

connection with other mitzvot, three levels of fulfillment: basic obligation,
mehadrin (the scrupulous), and mehadrin min ha-mehadrin (the extremely
scrupulous).1 The basic obligation is to light one candle in each house on
each night. Those who are scrupulous in their performance of mitzvot light
one candle for each member of the household. Finally, the extremely
scrupulous add an additional candle each night (following the opinion of Beit
Hillel). Today we all follow the practice of the extremely scrupulous, but the
posekim disagree what exactly this entails.

The Tosafot, commenting on the above passage, write that the third
level – mehadrin min ha-mehadrin – relates back to the first, rather than to the
second level. In other words, when Beit Hillel say that the extremely
scrupulous add an additional candle each night, they do not mean that each
member of the household adds an additional candle each night. Rather, one
person lights on behalf of the entire household (similar to the first level), and it
is this solitary lighting whose number of candles progressively increases each
night. The reason for this is that if candles were lit for each member of the
household, and an additional candle was added for each person on each
night, this would cause great confusion: When people would see a family
1
Rashi implies that the term “mehadrin” is not derived from the word “hadar,” meaning
beauty, but from the Aramaic verb meaning to go about in search of something. Thus, the
term mehadrin refers to people who go about in search of mitzvot.
lighting eight candles on the second night, they would not know whether there
are eight people in that house, each one lighting a candle for himself, or if
there are four people, each one lighting two candles. Therefore on the second
night, the extremely scrupulous light only two candles for the house,
regardless of the number of people living there.

The Rambam, however, understands the matter differently:

How many candles should one light on Chanuka? The mitzva is that a

single candle should be lit in each and every house, regardless of
whether there are many members of the household, or merely one
person [lives] there. A person who performs the mitzva in a beautiful
and scrupulous manner should light candles for every member of the
household, whether male or female. A person who is even more
scrupulous in his performance of the mitzva than this and observes the
mitzva in the most desirable manner should light candles for every
member of his household, a candle for each individual, whether male
or female, on the first night. On each subsequent night, he should add
a candle [for each member of the household]. (Hilkhot Chanuka 4:1)

According to the Rambam, the two embellishments – a candle for each

person and an additional candle each night – join together. On the first night,
the extremely scrupulous light the number of candles corresponding to the
number of people in the household, and on the second night they double that
number.

According to the Tosafot, the term mehadrin min ha-mehadrin means

that some people are even more scrupulous than the “regular” scrupulous
individuals, and because of this adopt a different and more successful
embellishment. According to the Rambam, the term can be understood
differently: Among those who are scrupulous, there are those who add an
additional embellishment.

The Shulchan Arukh and the Rema rule as follows:

How many candles does one light? On the first night he lights one
candle; from then on he adds one every night until there are eight on
the last night. Even if there are many family members, he should not
light any more.

Rema: And some say that each member of the household should light
(Rambam), and this is the common practice. They should take care
that each person should light his candles in a separate place, so that it
is evident how many candles they are lighting. (Orach Chayyim 671:2)

As the Taz points out, this is a novel set of rulings, as the Shulchan Arukh
rules in accordance with the Ashkenazi authority – Tosafot – whereas the
Rema rules in accordance with the Sefardi authority – the Rambam. 2
2
Indeed, our practice today adheres to normal halakhic convention; Sefardi Jews follow the
ruling of the Shulchan Arukh, and Ashkenazi Jews follow the ruling of the Rema.
 To be precise, however, the Rambam's wording is different from that of
the Rema. The Rema writes that each member of the household lights
separately. The wording of the Rambam, however, implies that one person
lights candles in accordance with the number of the members of the
household. The Acharonim explain the dispute as follows: According to the
Rema, candle lighting on the level of mehadrin is an obligation that is
incumbent upon each individual; according to the Rambam, candle lighting is
an obligation that is incumbent upon the family, meaning that it fundamentally
falls upon all the members of the household as a whole, rather than upon
each person individually (as the formulation of the basic law implies: “One
light for a man and his household”). Therefore, according to the Rambam,
there is only one lighting for all the members of the household, and the
embellishment relates exclusively to the number of candles. 3

It would appear that the Rema and the Rambam understand the law of
mehadrin in entirely different ways. According to the Rema, we are dealing
with an embellishment similar to “mitzva bo yoter mi-bishlucho,” that it is
preferable for each person to perform the mitzva by himself, rather than
through an agent. In contrast, the Rambam maintains that the embellishment
here is the increased publicity of the miracle, totally unconnected to the
principle of mitzva bo yoter mi-bishlucho. According to the Rambam, we are
dealing with a mitzva that relates in its very essence to the family, rather than
to the individual, and therefore it would be inappropriate for each person to
light for himself.

II. WOMEN AND CHANUKA CANDLES

Lighting candles on Chanuka is a time-bound positive commandment.

Fundamentally, then, women should be exempt from the mitzva. But the
Gemara explicitly states that women are obligated:

If a deaf-mute, a mental incompetent, or a minor lights, he

accomplishes nothing. But a woman may certainly light, for Rabbi
Yehoshua ben Levi said: “The [mitzva of the] Chanuka light is
obligatory for women, for they too were included in that miracle.”
(Shabbat 23a)

Chazal cite this same rationale – that they too were included in that
miracle – in obligating women in the mitzva of drinking four cups of wine at the
Pesach seder and in the mitzva of reading the megilla on Purim. What is the
meaning of “they too were included in that miracle?”

3
The author of Mo’adim U-zemanim (II, no. 133, p. 63) suggests that perhaps, according to
the Rambam, lighting candles is an obligation incumbent upon the house itself, similar to the
mitzva of mezuza; but this is true only when the candles are lit outside at the door of the
house. When the candles are lit inside, as is the predominant practice today, the “house’s
obligation” (chovat ha-bayit) is not fulfilled. Instead, only the individual’s obligation (chovat
gavra) is fulfilled. In order to perfom the mitzva on the level of mehadrin in such a case, each
person must light for himself. It is for this reason that the Rema veered from the words of the
Rambam.
 “For they too were included in that miracle” – The Rashbam explains
that the main miracle was through [women]: on Purim, through Esther;
on Chanuka, through Yehudit; on Pesach, by virtue of the righteous
women in that generation they were redeemed. This is difficult, for the
wording, “for they too,” implies that they were secondary. According to
his explanation, it should have [simply] said: “for they.” It therefore
seems to me that they too were in danger of being destroyed and
killed, and similarly on Pesach, they [too] were enslaved to Pharaoh in
Egypt, and similarly on Chanuka, the decree was very much against
them. (Tosafot, Megilla 4a)

The Tosafot cite two explanations: The women were among the saviors, e.g.,
Yehudit, who killed the Greek general Holofernes, or that the women were
included in the decrees and in the dangers, and therefore they too were saved
by the miracle. The Tosafot incline toward the second explanation, for if we
focus on the saviors, rather then on those who were saved, the wording “for
they too” is inappropriate. Queen Esther was not “also” among the saviors,
but rather “the main miracle was through her.” Therefore, the Tosafot explain
that even the women were delivered from the dangers that threatened them
during the times of persecution.

According to the Sefardi custom that only one person lights for all
members of the household, the issue of a woman's obligation does not usually
arise. Only one person lights, irrespective of the makeup of the household.
But even according to the Ashkenazi custom that each member of the
household lights, there is a widespread custom that women do not light. This
seems to be contrary to the plain meaning of the Talmudic passage. The
Mishna Berura (661, no. 9) writes that a married woman does not light her
own candles, because of the rule that “a man's wife is like himself,” and
therefore she fulfills her obligation through her husband's lighting. The
Maharshal already mentioned this consideration:

The mitzva of Chanuka [requires] one light for a man and his
household; the scrupulous kindle a light for each member of the
household; and the extremely scrupulous add an additional candle
each night and also light a candle for each member of the household,
as explained by the Rambam. And this is the common practice, and not
like the Ri4 who maintains that the other members of the household do
not light, but rather there is only one candle. A man and his wife
certainly suffice with one candle. (Responsa Ha-Maharshal, no. 85)

HaRav Aharon Lichtenstein argues that the wording of the Maharshal implies
that he speaks specifically according to the view of the Rambam. We inferred
from the Rambam that the scrupulous require only one lighting, in accordance
with the number of the members of the household. According to this position,
the Maharshal explains that a man and his wife count as one. It is possible
that even the Maharshal would agree that according to the Rema, who says
that there is a mitzva for each individual to light independently, even a woman
is obligated to light (if she wishes to perform the mitzva in a scrupulous
4
One of the Ba’alei Ha-Tosafot
manner). If the embellishment is merely in the numbers, then we count the
woman and her husband as one. But if the embellishment is based on the
principle of mitzva bo yoter mi-bishlucho, that it is preferable to perform a
mitzva by oneself and not through an agent, it is difficult to say that this does
not apply to a woman as well.

The Mishna Berura (675, no. 9), citing the Olat Shemuel, formulates his
explanation of the customary practice of women to refrain from lighting
differently: Women do not light Chanuka candles because they are secondary
to men. According to this, even unmarried women do not light. The Olat
Shemuel appears to be referring to the aforementioned Tosafot (Megilla 4a),
which states that the women were secondary to the men with respect to the
miracle of Chanuka. For this reason, the Tosafot rejected the Rashbam's
explanation that women participated in the act of deliverance. The Tosafot
argued that in this respect they were not secondary. Therefore, the Tosafot
explained that the women were partners in the danger, and in this regard they
were indeed secondary to the men. In other words, the men, for various
reasons, faced a greater danger than the women, and therefore the primary
obligation falls upon them. According to the Olat Shemuel, the obligation
based on the argument that “they too were included in that miracle” does not
equate the levels of obligation of men and women.

The Chatam Sofer proposes another explanation:

In my humble opinion, at first when they instituted that the mitzva of

Chanuka demands one light for a man and his household at the door of
the house from the outside, and the people embellished the mitzva and
went outside and lit by themselves in addition to the lighting of the head
of the household, no women were then included among the
scrupulous, because it does not accord with a woman's dignity to go
outside into the public domain toward evening and light candles among
the men… If there is a man lighting, it is not an act of piety for a woman
to be stringent upon herself in this matter and put herself under
suspicion. Now, therefore, even though we all light inside, nevertheless
the original custom does not move from its place. This appears correct
to me, with God's help. (Chatam Sofer, Shabbat 21b)

According to the Chatam Sofer, women are accustomed to refrain from

lighting Chanuka candles primarily for reason of modesty. In the past, it was
customary to light outside, and women did not ordinarily go out in the evening
and mingle with the many men there.5

5
The author of Mo’adim u-Zemanim (II, no. 133) offers another reason. According to him,
there are two aspects to the obligation to light Chanuka candles: it gives expression to the joy
of victory and also serves as a reminder of the lighting of the menora in the Temple. Women
did not have a part in the lighting of the menora in the Temple, as they were not obligated in
the mitzva to donate a half-shekel. As a result, they did not participate in financing the oil
burned in the menora. Therefore, when a woman lights, she only achieves partial fulfillment of
the reasons for lighting Chanuka candles. Even though this distinction has no expression in
halakha, it manifests itself in common practice: Women are accustomed to fulfill their
obligation through the lighting of men, which is more complete than their own.
 All this notwithstanding, we are left with the Gemara's clear implication
that according to the strict law, women who wish to fulfill the mitzva in a
scrupulous manner must light themselves, and there does not seem to be any
reason to refrain from doing this. Indeed, many women today follow this
approach and take care to light Chanuka candles on their own.

(Translated by David Strauss)