[Avodah] Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles?

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

First, let me get the easier stuff out of the way. So I am replying to
R Akiva Miller's second post first.

On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 6:38am EDT, RAM wrote:
: As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that
: takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real
: halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the
: lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort,
: but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that
: does not apply to Chanukah.

I though the point was that unlike neir Chanukah, neir Shabbos (or YT)
is about creating shalom bayis. Therefore, pushing to make their neiros
more of a collaborative effort between both spouses enancese the function
of neis Shabbos.

IOW, it is not about "the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation"
as much as about the wife's stress in that situation and letting her
feel less that she is shouldering the list alone.


Now, jumping back to Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:43pm EDT, when RAM wrote:
: Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3.
: The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was
: "awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a
: level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why
: this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this,
: because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs
: of the home."

Actually, you missed a word that would make the case stronger. "HaNashim
muzharos YOSEIR, mipenei shemetzuyos babayis..."

But in terms of halakhah, the Bach, the MA (s"q 6) and the Be'er Heiteiv
s"q 5 says that even if the husband wants to light himself, the woman
gets priority. Unless she's in labor or gave birth that week... (In
their respective next s"q, both the MA and the BH meantion the Chavah
kavsah neiro shel olam connection.)

The MB too...

So, it is given to them, even if that's not the point of the SA the OU
cites, "only" the nesei keilim.


: In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting
: the lights is part of that!

Well, maybe not. Could be, "Since we would prefer an ideal world where
women can consistently be homemakers..."

The mishnah in Bemeh Madliqin seems to imply that women don't just happen
to be the ones ending up dealing with niddah, hafrashas challah and neir
Shabbos, but that they have some special metaphysical connection. Being
insufficiently zehiros can cause death in a particular female way.

BTW, note that both the mishnah and the SA talk about "zehirus". Don't
know what to make of that.

Is halachic reflecting reality, or trying to push us toward a particular
social state?


This is actually one of the topics of an interesting exchange on R/Dr
Alan Brill's blog. RDAB interviewed R Ethan Tucker about his new book
"Gender Equality & Prayer in Jewish Law"
https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/interview-with-rabbi-ethan-tucker
And then posted some responses. In the OP, RETucker argues that most of
halakhah relating to women, in particular when they are lumped together
with avodim and qetanim, allegedly has to do with their social standing,
and therefore subject to new pesaqim as that social standing changes.

One paragraph:

   Until recent decades, it was self-evident that those with XX
   chromosomes, as a class, were subordinate in all kinds of ways.
   The category shift argument--proffered already several years ago
   by Rabbi Yoel bin Nun and developed further by me in [31]a recent
   essay--suggests that the Sages' original intent in these halakhot
   that speak about women, slaves and minors was never about biological
   sex per se, it was about class and power. Now that those variables
   have shifted dramatically in our society, women shift from exempt
   to obligated. The halakhah stays the same: those with power must
   subordinate themselves to serve God. And this is the key point:
   according to the category shift argument, maintaining an exemption
   from mitzvot for contemporary women because of their biology actually
   risks failing to direct them to fulfill their Biblical obligations
   in a range of mitzvot!

Then RDAB collected replies (there may still be more coming, I don't
know):
    Rn Malka Z Smikovich: http://j.mp/2wZh5Tb
    R Yoav Sorek (of the Tikvah Fund): http://j.mp/2eYO2Vd
    R Ysoscher Katz (of YCT): http://j.mp/2xnxsZM

RnMZS objects to the Historical-School style implication that halakhos
were motivated by the usual political forces of class and power. I'm not
sure that was RET's intent, that she's taking a line from the paragraph
I quoted out of context. But I'm undermotivated to spend time defending
his thesis. Rather, she says, it's about preserving a particular ideal
family unit.

RYSorek's position is closer to RET's. For example, he writes, "My
personal tendency is to count women for minyan, and I think this will
become natural; but I am not sure." Anyway, he still objects to the
thesis:

    Tucker is so captured in his egalitarian approach, that he does
    not really consider its own biases. For Tucker, there are only two
    possible explanations to excluding women from the minyan: ... [see
    quote above]. I believe that Tucker is right and that many of the
    halakhic rulings towards women are a function of their legal and
    economic status in ancient times; but I believe that this is not the
    full picture. Halakha thinks that men and women are not identical,
    and sees them as having different roles in a way that is essential
    for family and society. God could have created humanity as a single
    sex. He did not do so.
    ...
    Take just one application: a minyan is not just an instrument to allow
    certain rituals; it is the core of a Jewish community, or edah in
    halakhic discourse. While we were counting only adult men, we needed
    ten Jewish household to create a community. If we will count the women
    also, then we can be satisfied by five. This is a huge change, which
    is far from being technical. By counting two adults in every family,
    we reconstruct the meaning of a Jewish family or household. If until
    now the family was treated up to now as an organic unit, it is now
    closer to be an umbrella of two adults who share some kids.

So this objection (and it's not his whole argument) is that RET is
ignoring the possibility that he is tampering with halachically endorsed
social structure.

RYKatck also objects. He, like RnZSmikovich, reads RET as talking about
class and power as political motivators. And like the other two reviewers,
among his objections is the idea that halakhah doesn't only help us
decide how to respond in a given social context, it pushes particular
kinds of social structure over others.

    ... I think the rabbis were more concerned with preserving a stable
    social organism that depended on a traditional family structure with
    a husband and wife at the core.
    ...
    Much of halakha regards family law and is based on, or hopes for,
    community units that comprise family units which comprise individual
    units. When the family unit is threatened, the halakhic system is
    threatened. Demanding that both husband and wife participate equally
    in ritual law, therefore, may have been regarded as threatening
    to the family unit. I am not arguing that the concept of a stable
    family unit needs to remain static throughout the centuries, but
    noting that the ideal of familial stability motivated the rabbis.

A final person note: I come from a world sufficiently far to the right
of the men in this discussion that at times I fail to see how there is
so much to say about it.

Just to remind you after all that quoting how I got this far afield:
Perhaps the mechaber is saying that women are muzharos because they are --
and we would prefer if they could be -- the ones at home more and busier
with the needs of the home. And so we create a social context in which
that is not only accomodated, but comes more naturally.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha at aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham