[Avodah] women lighting candles

[Jesse Abelman]

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 9:24 PM, <T613K at aol.com> wrote:

>
>
>  From: "kennethgmiller at juno.com" kennethgmiller at juno.com
>
> >> MB 675:9 quotes the Olas Shmuel that "although by us, each one lights by
> himself, nevertheless a woman does not have to light because they are merely
> tafel to the men (havayan rak tefeilos la'anashim). If they want to light,
> they do say the brachos, because it is like other mitzvos aseh shehazman
> grama that they can say brachos on. When the man is not home, the woman
> should light, because she *is* obligated, and *with* a bracha -- and not by
> having a child light."
>
>
> ....I find it particularly noteworthy that he invokes the concept of
> "mitzvos aseh shehazman grama" and the (Ashkenazi) psak that women *do* say
> the brachos on such mitzvos. This seems to contradict his own admission that
> women *are* obligated on their own. <<
>
> Akiva Miller
>
>
> >>>>
> He didn't say they are obligated "on their own" -- you added those words.
> He just said women are obligated and are yotzei with their husbands'
> lighting.  It seems to me exactly the same as saying kiddush on Shabbos.  I
> don't see where your problem is or why you think there is a contradiction in
> the MB. You created the contradiction by adding the words "on their own."  I
> guess you thought those words were implied when he said "women are
> obligated" but that's not correct.  A woman can either be yotzei with her
> husband's kiddush on Shabbos or she can make her own if she doesn't want to
> wait until he comes home from shul.  The facts that she is 1. obligated in
> kiddush and 2. yotzei with another person's kiddush are not a contradiction.
>
> --Toby Katz
> =========
>

  >>>>>
     If Reb. Akiva Miller doesn't mind me jumping in here, this is very
different case from Kiddush on shabbat.  In that case, she has an obligation
to say kiddush, which she fufils through the principle of Shom'ea ke-Oneh.
Any adult male can fufil his obligation in the same manner.  This is true
for most (maybe all, but I don't know that for a fact) verbal mitzvot,
including brachot, tefilah and Krias shm'a.

    Channukah is totally different animal, as it is a non-verbal mitzvah.
Not only that, but it is not an individual mitzvah, the Mitzvah is "ner Ish
u-Beito."  Right before citing the teshuva of the Olas-Shumel, MB says
explictly that either husband or wife can fufill this obligation for the
household, so long as the other household members are present and hear the
blessings.  He then goes on to quote the teshuva, which is not about
fufilling the obligation, but about the ashkenazic custom of fulfilling
Mehadrin minhamehadrin by having every adult member of the household light.
He excludes women, because they are tafel to the men, but permits them to
say a bracha if they choose,as with other mitzvot mitvot aseh she-hazman
grama,as said before.

 What's strange about this, I think, is that none of it is on the level of
basic obligation.  We're talking about how to do Mehadrin min ha-mehadrin
here.  Invoking the fact that women can make a bracha on mitzvat aseh
she-hazman grama in which they are not obligated an explanation for why they
can make a bracha here is strange.  Her obligation is fufulled by her
husband, sure.  So are the obligations of all her adult sons at home, but
they still make a bracha on their menorahs for Mehadrin min ha-Mehadrin.

  What I think is happening is this: In terms of membership in the
household, the wife (or all women?  Does this apply to unmarried adult
daughters too?  Unclear.) is not a separate member for mehadrin min
ha-mehadrin candlelighting purposes, she counts with her husband.  But if
this is the case, then Olas Shmuel is stuck.  Because that means that when
women DO decide to light candles with their families, they shouldn't make a
bracha.  After all, they don't count for Mehadrin min ha-mehadrin at all.
(By this logic, women lighting neither adds nor subtracts hidur, I think.)
But he knows that women make a bracha in this case.  So he treats it like
Mitzvot aseh she-hazman grama where they have no obligation, but they are
fufulling it anyway, even though what it really is is Hidur mitzvat aseh
she-hazman grama, in which she doesn't contribute to the hiddur, but may
make the bracha anyway.

  Frankly, I don't find this very compelling, but I understand why he takes
this approach. He's stuck.  Women are obviously obligated, but equally
obviously don't participate in Mehadrin min Ha-mehadrin.  However, when they
do, they bless.  So this is his explanation.

          Jesse A.

>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo
> Mail. Try it now<http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025>
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avodah at lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081224/20c548d2/attachment-0002.htm>