[Avodah] wife lighting menora

[Micha Berger]

I posted a link to the following earlier, but it seems from
the continued discussion that many people didn't bother chasing
it. So, here's a discussion of who should light from R' David
Brofsky in Gush's VBM's "Chanukah Package" for this year
<http://vbm-torah.org/archive/chag71/chan71.htm>.

My apologies to RMP and others who can't receive more than 32k or so per
email. (Blackberry has such a limitation, among others.) I'm betting the
2nd essay in the above link will take up the rest of this digest. You
can find it there.

-Micha

NER CHANUKA: WHO LIGHTS AND HOW MANY CANDLES?
Rav David Brofsky

In this shiur, we will we discuss a woman's obligation in ner Chanuka,
and the practical and conceptual importance of this issue. In addition,
we will endeavor to define the essential mitzva of ner Chanuka and try to
understand the various opinions that exist regarding the three different
levels of performing this mitzva enumerated by the Gemara.

WOMEN AND NEROT CHANUKA

The Gemara (Shabbat 23a) teaches:

    "Women certainly light, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi taught: Women
    are obligated in ner Chanuka, as they were also in the miracle..."

Apparently, despite the broad exemption from time-bound commandments
("mitzvot aseh she-hazman gerama"), women are obligated to fulfill the
mitzva of Chanuka lights. Similarly, the Gemara elsewhere teaches that
women are included in the obligations of mikra megilla (Megilla 4a)
and arba kosot (Pesachim 108a), which are also time-bound commandments.

The Rishonim discuss the precise meaning of the phrase, "af hen hayu
be-oto ha-nes" -- "they were also in the miracle." Rashi, in the
context of Megilla reading (Megilla 4a), explains that the decree of
annihilation included both men and women, and hence the mitzvot enacted
to commemorate the nation's deliverance naturally apply to men and women
alike. The Rashbam (Tosafot, Megilla 4a, s.v. she-af hen) disagrees,
explaining that in all three instances -- in Persia, in Egypt, and during
the Greek persecution -- women played a crucial role in Am Yisrael's
salvation. Esther, of course, brought about the deliverance of the Jewish
people during the time of Achashverosh. The four cups of wine drunk at
the seder commemorate the Exodus from Egypt, regarding which the Sages
comment (in Sota 11b and elsewhere), "In the merit of righteous women,
the children of Israel were redeemed from Egypt." As for the Chanuka
miracle, the Rashbam claims that this miracle was facilitated by Yehudit,
a beautiful Jewish widow known to us through the apocryphal book of
Judith. Yehudit ingratiated herself to the enemy general, Holofernes,
and eventually decapitated him while he slept in a drunken stupor. The
Syrians, having lost their leader, fled, and the Jewish people were saved.

Aside from the questionable historicity of this story, Tosafot note that
the phrase, "they were ALSO in the miracle" indicates that the women
were also saved, or, as the Talmud Yerushalmi explains, they were "also
in the same situation of insecurity" ("safek," or danger), and not that
they were responsible for the miraculous deliverance in each occurrence.

The Rishonim also discuss the scope and nature of this halakha. Tosafot
(Pesachim 108b s.v. hayu), for example, question why women are exempt
from the commandment to dwell in sukkot, given that they, too, benefited
from God's miraculous protection in the wilderness. Elsewhere (Megilla
4a ibid.), Tosafot inquire as to why the Talmud does not invoke the rule
of af hen hayu as the basis for women's inclusion in the mitzva of matza,
resorting instead to a different source.

Interestingly, the Chatam Sofer (Rabbi Moshe Sofer, 1762-1839), in his
work of responsa (O.C. 185), asks why the Talmud didn't obligate women to
wear tefillin, which also serve as a reminder for the Exodus from Egypt.

Tosafot (Pesachim 108b) suggest that the principle of af hen hayu refers
only to women's obligation to perform mitzvot that are of Rabbinic
origin (mi-derabbanan). As such, this rule cannot be applied to sukka
or matza. Furthermore, they claim that af hen hayu is effective only in
obligating women on a Rabbinic level, and cannot mandate the performance
of a mitzva on the level of Torah obligation (mi-de'orayta).

Theoretically, it would seem, the principle of af hen, according to
Tosafot, may obligate women to perform any mitzva of Rabbinic origin
instituted to commemorate a miracle experienced equally by women.

Thus, for example, we might consider applying this rule to the obligation
of shalosh se'udot -- to eat three meals on Shabbat. The Talmud (Shabbat
117b) infers this requirement from the Torah's threefold use of the word
"today" (ha-yom) in reference to the manna: "And Moshe said: Eat it (the
manna) today, for today is Shabbat to God; today you will not find it in
the field" (Shemot 16:25). The repetition of the word ha-yom indicated
to Chazal that that one should eat three meals each Shabbat in order to
commemorate the miracle of the mann. While according to most opinions,
the obligation to eat three meals on Shabbat is of Rabbinic origin,
the Gemara clearly relates its performance to the miracle of the mann.

Rabbeinu Tam (Sefer Ha-yashar, Teshuvot 70) insists that women are
included under this obligation, as they also benefitted from the miracle
of the mann which the three Shabbat meals are intended to commemorate. The
Shulchan Arukh (O.C. 291:6) codifies this position, though his ruling
may be attributed to various different reasons, and does not necessarily
stem from Rabbeinu Tam's contention (see Mishna Berura 26).

Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik often cited his father, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik,
as suggesting a distinction between a mitzva intended to publicize a
miracle (pirsumei nisa), and a mitzva that we perform merely to recall a
miracle. He explained that the three mitzvot to which the Talmud applies
the rule of af hen hayu -- ner Chanuka, mikra megilla, and arba kosot --
are intended for pirsumei nisa, to publicize the given miracle. This
is not the case with the other mitzvot mentioned above. Although by
sitting in a sukka one recalls God's protection of the Jewish people in
the desert, and the three Shabbat meals commemorate the miracle of the
mann, their primary function is not to publicize these miracles.

"Af hen hayu be-oto ha-nes," R. Moshe Soloveitchik explains, applies
only to mitzvot of pirsumei nisa, and therefore does not apply to mitzvot
such as sukka, tefillin and shalosh se'udot, which are not intended for
the purpose of publicizing a miracle.

This approach clearly underscores the special quality of ner Chanuka,
as a mitzva defined and dictated by its ability to publicize the miracle.

WOMEN AND MEHADRIN

The basic mitzva of ner Chanuka is ner ish u-veito (Shabbat 21b),
meaning, that a single light be kindled in the home each night of
Chanuka. The higher level of performance, or mehadrin, requires that
each member of the household light Chanuka candles. The question arises
as to whether women, especially married women, should kindle their own
lights, like other members of the household, or whether they should
fulfill their obligation through the lighting of their husbands or other
family members. As we shall see shortly, this question is only relevant
according to the Ashkenazic practice, according to which each person
kindles their own lights. According to Sephardic custom only one person,
usually the head of the household, lights.

The Maharshal (Rabbi Shlomo Luria, 1510-1574) writes that one candle
certainly suffices for both husband and wife (Teshuvot Maharshal 85). The
Eliya Rabba (671) and, later, the Mishna Berura (671:9), explain that
married women do not light because of the halakhic concept of ishto
ke-gufo ('a man's wife is like himself'). The Eliya Rabba adds that for
this reason, married women do not light individually to fulfill the
level of mehadrin. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggrot Moshe O.C. 109) notes
that according to this rationale, if the wife had lit Chanuka candles,
then the husband should not light, unless he specifically had in mind
not to fulfill his obligation through his wife's lighting (see Rema
677:3). Furthermore, it would seem that according to the Eliya Rabba,
there is no inherent preference for the husband to light instead of the
wife, and they may even take turns if they so desire.

In any event, the practice among many married women is not to light
Chanuka candles. As noted by many Acharonim, this custom is valid only
with regard to married women; it would seem that unmarried women and
women whose husbands are not currently at home must certainly light
Chanuka candles.

Yet, in many communities it is customary for even single women not to
light Chanuka candles. Some have suggested that the since this lighting
should preferably take place outside, and imposing such a requirement upon
an unmarried girl would violate her "modesty," the custom developed for
unmarried women not to light at all (Chatam Sofer, Shabbat 21b). Others
explain that it would be disrespectful for a girl to light given that her
married mother does not light (Mishmeret Shalom 48:2). Yet a third theory
claims, quite simply, that since a girl will not light after marriage,
there is no reason to encourage her to light while still single. Clearly,
however, a woman living alone must light nerot Chanuka.

Rav Soloveitchik, as recorded by R. Hershel Schachter (Nefesh Ha-Rav,
pg. 226), found it difficult to apply the principle of ishto ke-gufo to
this mitzva, and therefore ruled that even married women, not to mention
unmarried women, should kindle their own Chanuka lights.

Interestingly, R. Moshe Harari, in his Mikraei Kodesh -- Hilkhot Chanuka
(addendum 7 pg. 154), cites previously unpublished comments of R. Moshe
Feinstein recalling that women in his hometown in Europe did, in fact,
light nerot Chanuka, with a berakha, contrary to the impression given
by the Mishna Berura. His wife, however, was not accustomed to lighting
nerot Chanuka, and R. Feinstein did not impose his customs (including that
of women lighting nerot Chanuka) on his wife. In any event, R. Feinstein
observed that women in America are not accustomed to lighting ner Chanuka.

As women are equally obligated in the mitzva of ner Chanuka, a woman
may fulfill her family's obligation to light.

NER ISH U-VEITO -- HOW MANY LIGHTS?

One of the great difficulties in understanding the mitzva of ner Chanuka
relates to the following Talmudic passage (Shabbat 21b):

    "Our Rabbis taught: The precept of Chanuka [demands] one light for a
    man and his household (ner ish u-veito); the zealous ('mehadrin')
    [kindle] a light for each member [of the household]; and the
    extremely zealous ('mehadrin min ha-mehadrin') -- Beit Shammai
    maintain: On the first day, eight lights are lit, and thereafter,
    they are gradually reduced; but Beit Hillel say: On the first day,
    one is lit, and thereafter, they are progressively increased..."

First, the Talmud presents an unprecedented three-tiered description of
this mitzva's performance: ner ish u-veito, mehadrin and mehadrin min
ha-mehadrin. This itself requires some explanation, as we discussed in
an earlier shiur (http://www.vbm-torah.org/chanuka/han70-db.htm).

Second, the relationship between the levels of mehadrin and mehadrin
min hamehadrin is unclear, and subject to considerable debate, as we
shall see.

Let us begin, however, by posing a more basic question, one which pertains
to numerous halakhic issues, such as how many candles one lights, where
one should light, whether and how a guest should light, and whether a
traveler or somebody with no home should light.

The Gemara mentions an obligation imposed upon a person (ish) and
his household (beito). This description gives rise to the question of
whether we should view the mitzva as a personal obligation (chovat gavra)
which one performs (maybe only preferably) at the entrance of his house,
or as an obligation upon a house (chovat ha-bayit), similar to mezuza.

On the one hand, the Gemara may be instructing us that one fulfills his
individual mitzva by having a candle lit at the entrance to the house. The
fact that the lighting should take place in the context of one's house,
according to this perspective, is but one detail of the mitzva, which is
defined essentially as a personal obligation. Conceivably, if we accept
this approach, we may even allow for fulfilling this mitzva without
a house (as we will discuss), since the house is not essential to the
basic definition of the obligation.

On the other hand, one might suggest that the mitzva is essentially
defined as requiring candle lighting in one's home. The Rambam,
for example, writes (Hilkhot Megilla Ve-Chanuka 4:1), "The mitzva is
such that EACH AND EVERY HOUSE SHOULD LIGHT ONE CANDLE, regardless of
whether the inhabitants of the house are many, or even just one..." The
Rambam describes the mitzva as a requirement incumbent upon the house,
rather than an obligation upon individuals. Similarly, the Ran (Rif,
Shabbat 10a) understood a comment in the Gemara as proposing that guests
be entirely exempt from ner Chanuka, just as a guest is not obligated
to affix his own mezuza in someone else's house. This notion certainly
reflects a perspective that views the obligation as essentially defined
as an obligation upon the home.

MEHADRIN AND MEHADRIN MIN HA-MEHADRIN

This question may also affect our understanding of the mehadrin and
mehadrin min ha-mehadrin levels of ner Chanuka.

The Gemara (Shabbat 21b) establishes that beyond the basic obligation
of ner ish u-veito, there are two higher levels at which this mitzva
may be performed: mehadrin and mehadrin min ha-mehadrin, the latter of
which is subject to a debate between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

The Gemara teaches that "the zealous ('ha-mehadrin') [kindle] a light
for each member [of the household]..." This seems to mean that the
ba'al ha-bayit (head of the household) lights on each night the number
of candles corresponding to the members of the household. While one may
view the attention to the individuals as evidence of a chovat gavra,
one may also simply understand that the mehadrin house must also reflect
its inhabitants.

The Gemara continues:

    "The extremely zealous (ha-mehadrin min ha-mehadrin) -- Beit Shammai
    maintain: On the first day eight lights are lit, and thereafter they
    are gradually reduced; but Beit Hillel say: On the first day one is
    lit, and thereafter they are progressively increased..."

As for the basis of their debate, the Gemara explains:

    "'Ulla said: Two Amora'im in the West [Israel], R. Yose b. Abin and
    R. Yose b. Zebida, differ therein. One maintains that Beit Shammai's
    reason is that it shall correspond to the days still to come, and
    that of Beit Hillel is that it shall correspond to the days that have
    passed; but another maintains that Beit Shammai's reason is that it
    shall correspond to the bullocks of the Festival [Sukkot], whilst
    Beit Hillel's reason is that we advance in [matters of] sanctity,
    but do not reduce ('ma'alin ba-kodesh ve-ein moridin')."

The Rishonim differ as to how to understand the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin
standard. Tosafot (Shabbat 21b), as well as the Ra'ah (cited in the Ran,
Shabbat 21b) and others, understood that the Gemara establishes two
types of hidur ("enhancement"): One, the mehadrin, dictates lighting in
a manner which reflects the number of inhabitants of the house, while the
other, the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin, requires lighting in a manner which
reflects the ascending or descending days of Chanuka. In other words,
the "mehadrin min ha-mehadrin" is not an extension of the mehadrin,
but rather stands independently of the mehadrin and expands the basic
mitzva of "ner ish u-veito."

Furthermore, Tosafot note that if the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin would
expand the mehadrin, the entire purpose of these higher standards would
be undermined. Since the number of candles would correspond to both
the members of the household and the number of days that have passed,
observers would be unable to determine the number of members of the
household, or the number of days that have passed. Tosafot therefore
maintain that the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin is intended to reflect the
number of days instead of (and not in addition to) the members of the
household, as reflecting the number of days emphasizes the enormity
of the miracle of the oil, and. is a greater form of pirsum ha-nes
(publicizing the miracle). It would seem, however, that if one could
light in a manner that would accurately reflect the amount of days,
as well as the number of residents, that would certainly be preferred;
we will return to this point shortly.

The Rambam (4:3) records the following as "the simple custom in all our
cities in Sefarad":

    "... All the members of the house light one candle on the first
    night, and they continually add a candle each night until they have
    lit eight lights, regardless of whether the members of the household
    are numerous, or even one..."

This custom corresponds with Tosafot's view, that the mehadrin min
ha-mehadrin does not include the mehadrin, meaning, each household -- and
not each person -- lights the number of candles corresponding with the
number of the day. (Granted, the opening phrase in this passage -- "All
the members of the house..." -- give rise to some confusion and require
some explanation, but this lies beyond the scope of our discussion.)

The Rambam himself (4:2), however, as well as R. Yohanatan of Lunel (Ran,
Shabbat 21b) and the Ritva (Shabbat 21b), disagree. The Rambam explains
that while the mehader et ha-mitzvot ("one who performs the mitzvot in
a beautified manner) lights the number of candles corresponding to the
number of household members, one who wishes to "beautify the mitzvot even
more, and fulfill the mitzva in the optimal way," also calculates the
night of Chanuka. Therefore, he continues, if there are ten members of
the household, the ba'al ha-bayit lights ten candles on the first night,
while on the eighth night he will light eighty. Tosafot, as we noted
above, rejects this option, as one who sees these lights cannot readily
discern between the amount of household members and the number of nights.

In summary, while Tosafot prefer to publicize that the miracle lasted
for eight days, the Rambam views the additional lights, which reflect
multiple nights and household members, as the hidur.

The Maharil (Rabbi Yaakov b. Moshe Moellin, 1360-1427) records (Teshuvot
145) the prevalent custom -- presumably among German communities --
for each individual to light nerot Chanuka. This practice seems to imply
that the mitzva of ner Chanuka, or at least the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin,
focuses upon the lighting of the individual, or what we referred to as
a chovat gavra.

PRACTICAL HALAKHA

The Shulchan Arukh (O.C. 671:2), rules in accordance with the practice
documented by the Rambam, and the position of Tosafot, that the ba'al
ha-bayit should light one candle each night, corresponding to the number
of nights, concluding with eight candles on the eighth night.

The Rema, on the other hand, writes:

    "Some say that each member of the house should light, and that is
    the common custom. [But] each person should be careful to place his
    lights in a designated place, so that it should be clear how many
    candles are being lit..."

Some Acharonim (see, for example, Taz 671:1) question how the Shulchan
Arukh, which represents the Sephardic tradition, rules in accordance
with Tosafot, while the Rema, the voice of Ashkenzic practice, favors
the Rambam's position.

In truth, the Shulchan Arukh's ruling follows the prevalent custom of
the cities of Sefarad as recorded by the Rambam, and it should therefore
come as no surprise.

[Regarding single Sephardic soldiers, or older students studying in
yeshivot or university, some authorities (R. Ovadya Yosef, Yechave Da'at
6:43, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Shalmei Moed, pg. 204) rule that they
fulfill their obligation through the lighting in their homes. R. Auerbach
even believes that overseas students whose parents light in a different
time zone should still refrain from lighting. R. Yosef disagrees (see
Chazon Ovadya Chanuka, pg.150). Others (R. Ovadiah Hadayah, Yaskil
Avdi, 7, pg. 386, Chazon Ish and R. Elyashiv, Yemi Hallel Ve-hodaya,
pg. 277, R. Shalom Mashash and R. Avrum Shapiro (Peninei Halacha Zemanim,
pg. 281) maintain that single soldiers and students (after high school)
are considered independent and must light on their own.]

However, the Rema, who rules that the number of lights should correspond
to the number of residents as well as to the number of days, indeed
seems to accept the Rambam's ruling over that of Tosafot, in contrast
to the Rema's procedure of codifying the Ashkenazic custom.

A closer examination of the Rema's ruling reveals that it does not
actually reflect the view of the Rambam. For one thing, the Rambam rules
that the ba'al ha-bayit lights all of the candles, while the Rema insists
that each individual lights in his/her own separate place. Secondly,
in his earlier work, Darkhei Moshe (a commentary to the Tur), the Rema
cites the Maharal of Prague as commenting that since we no longer light
outside, it is possible for each person to light in a separate area, such
that both the number of days and number of residents can be signified
through the lighting.

In other words, the Rema rules according to Tosafot, who would
certainly agree that when possible, one should fulfill BOTH types of
hidur: reflecting the number of inhabitants, and the number of days. He
therefore rules that nowadays, when this dual hidur is attainable, it
becomes the ideal arrangement for lighting. (Incidentally, the Rema's
interpretation of Tosafot strongly suggests an emphasis upon the chovat
gavra, as opposed to an obligation upon the household; we shall develop
this point further a bit later.)

The Acharonim raise numerous questions on the Rema's ruling. For example,
once one person has lit, and all members of the household have fulfilled
the basic obligation of ner ish u-veito, how is it possible for other
members of the household to light with a berakha? While some (see Peri
Megadim M"Z 671:1, R. Akiva Eiger -- Mahadura Tinyana 13) suggest that one
should have in mind not to fulfill the mitzva through another person's
lighting, others (see Sefat Emet 21b) disagree. If so, then how does
one recite a blessing upon a hidur mitzva if he has already fulfilled
the basic obligation?

The Griz (R. Yitzchak Ze'ev Soloveitchik) explained that the Rema and
the Rambam perhaps disagree concerning the status of a hidur mitzva
that is not performed as part of the basic mitzva. The Rema apparently
assigns great significance to a hidur mitzva and therefore sanctions
reciting a berakha when performing the hidur, even when it is performed
independently.

Alternatively, we might suggest that the Talmud here establishes three
distinct ways to perform the mitzva, such that one who fulfills the
mehadrin min ha-mehadrin has not simply "glorified" the mitzva, but has
rather fulfilled the mitzva of reflecting the number of days and the
house's residents through the number of lights. Since he fulfills an
entirely new mitzva by lighting the extra candles, he recites a berakha
despite the fact that he has already fulfilled the basic obligation.

The Acharonim raise a number of other interesting questions relevant to
the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin, as well. For example, may one who began
lighting without reciting the berakha subsequently recite the berakha and
continue lighting? And do the halakhot regarding personal use of the light
of the ner Chanuka apply to the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin candles? These
questions, too, touch upon the issue of whether we should view the
extra candle as integral to the basic obligation, or as fulfilling a
separate mitzva.

Interestingly, the Mishna Berura (672:6) cites a debate between the Beit
Yosef (citing the Orchot Chayim) and the Peri Megadim as to whether one
who lights one candle with a berakha, and later receives additional
candles, should light the new candles with a berakha. The Beit Yosef
implies that if one did not have the additional candles in mind when he
recited the berakha, he should recite the berakha again upon reciting
the new lights. The Peri Megadim disagrees. The Magen Avraham (651:23)
discusses this issue and rules in accordance with the Beit Yosef.

This debate should, seemingly, also affect the case of who speaks after
lighting the first candle. Here, too, we might assume, the Beit Yosef
would require a new berakha, while the Peri Megadim would not. However,
the Peri Megadim elsewhere (Rosh Yosef, Shabbat 23a) writes that one who
speaks between lighting the first and second candles should, in fact,
recite another berakha. The later Acharonim attempt to reconcile these
seemingly contradictory rulings. In any event, these issues reflect the
basic question of whether the additional lights constitute an integral
part of the basic mitzva, or are merely a hidur, a means of enhancing
the mitzva, but not part of the mitzva itself.