[Avodah] Ladies not making Havdallah

[Chana Luntz]

> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 05:47:42PM -0400, Aryeh Herzig wrote:
> > Yerushalmi Berachot says we say Havdallah in Chonen Hadaat because :
> >Im Ein Daath Havdallah Minayin".  Since Nashim Daatan Kaloth they can not
> > make havdallah. ( Maariv is reshus so ladies don't daven Maariv anyway
so
> > it is only relevant on Havdallah al HaKos.)

And RMB replied

> Women are mechuyavos in havdallah, the question is only Havdallah al
> haKos. But saying or being yotzeit at least "barukh hamavdil bein
> qodesh lechol" is mandatory (Rama OC 299:10).

Nashim dataan kalot is a complete irrelevancy here, but RMB's statement
above is also not quite right.

First you need to understand the concept of Havdala, and then the
applicability to women.

To my mind, the best summary of the various shitot is the Aruch Hashulchan
in Orech Chaim Siman 296.  First he sets out the references in the gemora,
and then brings the Rambam, the Smag, the Sefer Hachinuch and Pirkei D'Rabbi
Eliezer in support of the position that havdala is d'orisa, and linked to
Kiddush (sanctification of shabbas as it comes in and as it goes out being
equivalent and derived from the Torah).

And then he brings the Magid Mishna on the Rambam that there are those who
disagree and hold that havdala is only d'rabbanan, and their opinion is that
all of these Torah texts are asmachtos b’alama.

And then he states in Si'if 4:

...ונפקא מינה לדינא לעניין נשים, דאי דאורייתא - גם נשים חייבות, דלכל מילי
דשבת שוות. ואי דרבנן, ואין הדבר תלוי בשמירת שבת אלא דבר בפני עצמו, והיא זמן
גרמא - אין הנשים חייבות בה (ב"י סוף סימן זה בשם א"ח). ויש אומרים דאפילו אם
הוא דרבנן - חייבות, דדומיא דקידוש תקנוה (מ"מ שם).

... And the nafka mina l’dina is in relation to women, because if it is from
the Torah – also women are obligated, since for all matters of shabbas [the
obligations] are equal.  But if it is from the rabbis, and the matters is
not dependent upon shmiras shabbas rather that it is a matter of its own,
and it is a zman grama – then women are not obligated in it (Beis Yosef at
the end of this siman).  And there are those who say that even if it is
d’rabbanan, they are obligated, since they [the rabbis] enacted it to be
like Kiddush (Magid Mishna there)

And then in si'if 5:

ועל פי זה כתב רבינו הב"י בסעיף ח': "נשים חייבות בהבדלה כשם שחייבות בקידוש,
ויש מי שחולק" עכ"ל. וכתב רבינו הרמ"א: דעל כן לא יבדילו לעצמן, רק ישמעו הבדלה
מן האנשים עכ"ל.
ויש מי שהשיג עליו, דאפילו אם הם פטורות - רשאות לברך, כמו שמברכות על כמה מצות
עשה שהזמן גרמא כסוכה ולולב וכיוצא בהם (ב"ח ומג"א סקי"א). וזה שאחד מהפוסקים
כתב שאינן רשאות להבדיל לעצמן - הכוונה שאינן מחוייבות, אבל אם ירצו - מותרות
(שם בב"ח).
ויש מי שמיישב דברי רבינו הרמ"א דדווקא במקום שאנשים חייבים מדאורייתא - דאז
רשאות לברך, ולא בהבדלה, למי שסובר דגם אנשים הם רק מדרבנן (ט"ז סק"ז).
ותמיהני, הלא לולב כל ימי החג הם דרבנן לבד יום הראשון, ונשים מברכות. ויש מי
שרוצה לחלק דדווקא במצות מעשיות יכולות לברך, ולא במצוה שהוא רק דיבור בעלמא
(עיין מג"א שם). וגם זה אינו, דהרי גם בהבדלה יש מעשה דשתיית הכוס, ועוד איזה
סברא יש לחלק בזה, ועוד דרוב הפוסקים סוברים דהוי דאורייתא ומחוייבות מדין
תורה, ויכולות להוציא גם האנשים. ואפילו אי דרבנן - יש סוברים דגם הם דרבנן,
ויכולות להוציא, דשניהם דרבנן, וזה הסובר דאין חייבות כלל - הן דיעות יחידאות.
ונהי שיש לחוש לעניין שיוציאו האנשים, וגם טוב להן שישמעו מפי האנשים, מיהו זה
פשיטא דאם אין מי שיבדיל להן - שיבדילו לעצמן. וראיתי מי שהקשה דאיך יבדילו,
והא נשים אינן שותות מכוס הבדלה. ותמיהני על זה, דאטו דינא הוא, מנהגא בעלמא
הוא, ולא כולן חוששות לזה, ופשיטא דכשמבדילות צריכות לשתות.
וראיתי מי שכתב דאיש שכבר הבדיל - לא יבדיל בשביל נשים, כמו שהאיש אינו מברך על
השופר בשביל הנשים כשהוא כבר יצא, כמ"ש בסימן תקפ"ט (א"ר סקי"ח). ולי נראה שאין
זה דמיון, דבשופר פשיטא שאין שום חיוב עליהן, אבל הבדלה - לרוב הפוסקים חייבות.
ונהי נמי דלמיעוט יש לחוש שמא פטורות, ובוודאי אם יכולות להבדיל לעצמן יותר
טוב, אבל אם אין יכולות - מותר ומצוה לאיש לעשות בשבילן הבדלה, שכן דעת רוב
הפוסקים (כן נראה לעניות דעתי).

And on this writes the Shulchan Aruch in si’if 8: “women are obligated in
havdala just as they are obligated in kiddush and there are those who
disagree” and the Rema writes: and therefore they should not make havdala
for themselves, only they should listen to havdala from the men.

And there are those who comment on this, that even if they are exempt – they
are permitted to bless, like they bless on many mitzvoth aseh shehazman
grama like sukkah and lulav and similar to these (Bach and the Magen Avraham
si’if Katan 11).    And this that one of the poskim writes that they are not
permitted to make havdala themselves – the intention is that they are not
obligated, but if they want to, they are permitted (the Bach there).
And there is one who explains the words of the Rema that it is davka in a
place where the men are obligated in a matter from the Torah – that they [ie
women] are permitted to bless, and not havdala, according to the one who
explains that also for the men this [ie havdala] is only d’rabbanan (Taz
si’if katan 7).  And I wonder at his words, because behold lulav all the
days of chag it is d’rabbanan except for the first day, and women bless.
And there is one who wants to distinguish davka between mitzvoth that are
actions [where] they [women] are permitted to bless, but not a mitzvah which
is only words (see in the Magen Avraham there).  But also this is not so,
since behold in havdala there is the action of drinking the cup.  And
further what sort of reason is there to distinguish like this, and further,
the majority of the poskim hold that it [havdala] is from the Torah, and
they are obligated m’din Torah, and they are able to exempt also men.  And
even if it [havdala] is d’rabbanan, they are able to exempt, as they are
both d’rabbanan, and this position that they are not obligated at all, they
are [only] individual opinions [daot yechidot].

And there are those who want to be concerned for the matter of exempting the
men, and that also it is good for them to hear it from the mouths of men,
and anyway it is straightforward that if there is not [a man] to make
havdala for them, they should make havdala for themselves.  And I saw one
who questioned how can they [the women] make havdala, because behold women
do not drink from the cup of havdala.  And I wonder on this, because this is
din, and this is merely minhag, and not all are concerned for this, and it
is straightforward that when they make havdala they need to drink.

And I saw one who writes that a man who has already made havdala is not able
to make havdala for women, like the man who cannot bless on the shofar on
behalf of the women when he has already fulfilled his obligation, like is
written in siman 589 at the beginning of si’if katan 18.  And it seems to me
that this is not similar, that with shofar it is straightforward that there
is no obligation on them, but havdala, according to most poskim they are
obligated.  And those also of the minority that are concerned that they are
exempt, and indeed if they are able to make havdala for themselves it is
better, but if they are not able, it is permitted and a mitzvah for a man to
make for them havdala, and is the opinion of the majority of the poskim and
so it seems to my limited mind."

So in summary.  If the woman in question is Sephardi and hence follows Maran
over the Rema, then she is considered equally as obligated as a man in
obligation of havdala (and can exempt a man if necessary) (stam v'yesh omrim
halacha k'stam).  If she is Ashkenazi, then the Rema is choshesh for the
opinion that women are not obligated at all in havdala as it is an
independent, not shabbas linked, rabbinical mitzvah, which is dependent on
time, and therefore as per the general rule regarding positive mitzvoth
dependent upon time, she is exempt, and therefore despite the clear majority
opinion would appear to prefer that she heard it from a man.  Not everybody
agrees even with this interpretation of the Rema, however, and some say it
is just that she cannot exempt a man, but can say it for herself or other
women (the Bach).  There are others who say that if a man has fulfilled his
obligation he is not allowed, being choshesh for her non obligation, not
repeat it for her, but rather she should say it for herself, but the Aruch
Hashuchan, while preferring her to say it for herself, allows a man to make
havdala for a women if he has fulfilled his obligation already, given that
the overwhelming majority of the poskim obligate a woman equivalently to a
man.

There is also a minhag that women do not drink from the cup of havdala.  And
while, as the Aruch Hashulchan notes, not everybody follows this minhag, one
can therefore understand Rav Eliashev's position (that started this whole
thread off), that for havdala of Shabbat chazon, one should not give the kos
to a girl to drink.  After all, not drinking the kos for havdala after
Shabbat chazon is a minhag (and one the Sephardim do not follow), and not
giving a woman to drink from the kos of havdala is a minhag, and if it is a
clash of minhagim, it is clearly going to be better to waive the minhag of
not drinking the kos on shabbas chazon, since really, as is clear, the
ma'aseh of drinking is an integral part of havdala, and giving a child is a
bit dubious halachically anyway, so if you are going to have a minhag clash,
better that one gives.

Having now familiarised oneself with the topic and what our texts have said
about it, can one see why nashim datan kalot is a complete irrelevancy here?

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Shavuah Tov

Chana