Being Part of the Miracle Sara Tillinger Wolkenfeld

אשה ודאי מדליקה דא"ר יהושע בן לוי נשים חייבות בנר חנוכה שאף הן היו באותו הנס:

However, a woman certainly may light, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated in lighting the Hanukkah light, as they too were included in that miracle of being saved from the decree of persecution.

ל ואריב"ל נשים חייבות במקרא מגילה שאף הן היו באותו הנס

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi also said: Women are obligated in the reading of the Megilla, as they too were significant partners in that miracle.

ואמר ר' יהושע בן לוי נשים חייבות בארבעה כוסות הללו

{ק׳׳ח ב}שאף הן היו באותו הנס

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated in these four cups of wine at the Passover seder

{108b}As they too were included in that miracle of the Exodus, they are therefore obligated to participate in the celebration.

תוספות מסכת פסחים דף קח עמוד ב

היו באותו הנס - פי' רשב"ם שעל ידם נגאלו וכן במגילה ע"י אסתר ובחנוכה ע"י יהודית וקשה דאף משמע שאינן עיקר ועוד דבירושלמי גריס שאף הן היו באותו ספק משמע באותה סכנה דלהשמיד להרוג ולאבד והא דאמרינן דפטורות מסוכה אע"ג דאף הן היו באותו הנס כי בסוכות הושבתי התם בעשה דאורייתא אבל בארבעה כוסות דרבנן תיקנו גם לנשים כיון שהיו באותו הנס

Tosafot Pesachim 108b

Were included in the miracle – Rashbam explains that the redemption happened through women, and so too with megilla, by the hands of Esther, and so too with Hannukah, by the hands of Yehudit. And this is difficult, because “af” indicates that they were not at the core of the experience. And also the Yerushalmi says that “they too were included in the same doubt” – meaning, in the same danger of “to be destroyed…”. That which is stated, that [women] are exempt from [the obligation of] sukka, even though they were included in that miracle, of 'for I made the Israelites live [in booths]' – there we speak of a Biblical command. But regarding the four cups [of wine on Pesach eve], the rabbis established it even for women, since they were included in that miracle.

שאף הן היו באותו הנס גבי מצה יש מקשה למה לי היקשא דכל שישנו בבל תאכל חמץ ישנו בקום אכול מצה תיפוק ליה מטעם שהן היו באותו הנס וי"ל דמשום האי טעמא לא מחייבא אלא מדרבנן אי לאו

Since they were also part of the same miracle. In the matter of Matzah, there is one who asks why do we need this comparison, that everyone who is included in the prohibition of eating leavened bread is included in the positive commandment of eating Matzah. [Why not] learn it from them having been part of the same miracle? And it should be said, that this reason [part of the same miracle] does not obligate one but Rabbinically, so we need the comparison.

גמ׳ א"ר יוחנן אין למידין מן הכללות ואפילו במקום שנאמר בו חוץ מדקאמר אפי' במקום שנאמר בו חוץ מכלל דלאו הכא קאי היכא קאי התם קאי כל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא אנשים חייבין ונשים פטורות ושלא הזמן גרמא אחד נשים ואחד אנשים חייבין וכללא הוא דכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות הרי מצה שמחה והקהל דמצות עשה שהזמן גרמא הוא ונשים חייבות וכל מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא נשים חייבות הרי תלמוד תורה פריה ורביה ופדיון הבן דמצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא ונשים פטורות אלא אמר רבי יוחנן אין למידין מן הכללות ואפילו במקום שנאמר בו חוץ

GEMARA: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One may not learn from general statements, i.e., when a general statement is made in a mishna using the word all, it is not to be understood as an all-inclusive, general statement without exceptions. This is true even in a place where it says the word except. Even in that case, there may be other exceptions to the rule that are not listed. The Gemara notes: From the fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even in a place where it says except, this proves by inference that he was not relating to the general statement made here in the mishna, which uses the word except. To which mishna, then, was he relating when he formulated his principle? The Gemara answers: He was relating to a mishna found there: With regard to all time-bound, positive commandments, i.e., mitzvot that can only be performed at a certain time of the day, or during the day rather than at night, or on certain days of the year, men are obligated to perform them and women are exempt. But positive commandments that are not time-bound, both women and men are obligated to perform. Is it a general principle that women are exempt from all time-bound, positive commandments without exception? But there is the commandment to eat matza on Passover, the commandment of rejoicing on a Festival, and the commandment of assembly in the Temple courtyard once every seven years during the festival of Sukkot following the Sabbatical Year, all of which are time-bound, positive commandments, and nevertheless, women are obligated to perform them. Similarly, are women obligated in all positive commandments that are not time-bound? But there is the commandment of Torah study, the commandment to be fruitful and multiply, and the commandment of redemption of the firstborn, all of which are positive commandments that are not time-bound, and nevertheless, women are exempt from them. Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One may not learn from general statements, even in a place where it says except, because it is always possible that there other exceptions to the rule.

Harerei Kedem, 173:

Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated in lighting Hannukah candles, for they too were a part of the miracle. So too in Megilla...and see Tosafot there...who wrote in one answer that even for Torah level mitzvot, this can work to obligate women on a Rabbinic level. But the world asks - if this is the case, shouldn't women be obligated in tefillin? For the reason for tefillin is as it is written in the Torah, in order for the Torah to be in your mouth, for with a mighty hand God took you out of Egypt. And they too were a part of the miracle!

And the great Rav Moshe ztz"l answered that there there is a distinction between mitzvot in which the essence of its fulfillment is in order to publicize the miracle, and the object involved in the mitzvah is there to publicize the miracle, and other mitzvot in which the foundation of the obligation is to commemorate a miracle, but actually carrying out the mitzvah does not involve publicizing the miracle at all...

Now it makes sense that women are not obligated in tefillin, because from the verse "in order for the Torah to be in your mouth, for with a mighty hand God took you out of Egypt" we only learn that this is the foundation of the obligation, to commemorate the exodus from Egypt, but even so, the actual fulfillment of putting on tefillin does not involve any publicizing of the miracle. That is why the rule of "they too were a part of the miracle" is not applied to the mitzvah of tefillin.

And one indication of whether or not a mitzvah has in its observance an element of publicizing the miracle and which does not is whether or not the rabbis instituted an "al hanisim" blessing. For it appears that this blessing is only instituted for those mitzvot that have within the act of carrying them out an element of publicizing the miracle....

It also seems that another sign to know whether part of the essence of keeping the mitzvah is publicizing the miracle is whether one has to pay more than a fifth of his or her wealth for it...to drink the four cups of wine and to light Hannukah candles...even a poor person who subsists on charity is obligated...

שו"ת רב פעלים חלק ב - אורח חיים סימן סב

+בענין מחילה שצריך לבקש בפני עשרה אי סגי בעשרה נשים.+ שאלה, עמ"ש רמ"א ז"ל בש"ע /או"ח/ סי' תר"ו, שצריך לומר בפני עשרה, שבקש ממנו מחילה ולא רצה למחול כדי שלא יחשדוהו וכו', ונסתפקנו אם אמרו בפני עשרה נשים אי מהני, יורינו ושכמ"ה.

תשובה. בהשקפה הראשנה אמרתי הסברה מחייבת דמהני בעשרה נשים, דמידי הוא טעמא אלא בעבור פרסום הדבר, גם ע"י נשים יתפרסם, ואדרבה נשים דברניות הן ויפרסמו הדבר יותר מאנשים, אך חזרתי ואמרתי די"ל להפך, יען כי פרסום זה בעינן ליה בין אנשים, ועל ידי הנשים לא יתפרסם הדבר בין אנשים, כי הן דברניות בין הנשים מין במינו, ואין דרכם לדבר בין אנשים, ועוד י"ל מה שהצריכו אותו לומר בפני עשרה אנשים הוא כדי שיבוש בהוראתו /בהודאתו/ שמודה שחטא לחבירו וביקש ממנו מחילה, ועי"כ יהיה לו כפרה, ואפשר שלפני הנשים לא יהיה לו בושה כ"כ בדבר זה, ולכך צריך שיאמר זה בפני אנשים שהם מסוג שלו, ויבוש בפניהם יותר...

ונ"ל בס"ד להוכיח דגם בנשים חשיב פרסום, דאיתא בש"ע סי' תר"ן מגילה בי"ד וט"ו צריך לחזור אחר עשרה, וכתב רמ"א דיש להסתפק אם נשים מצטרפות לעשרה, ועיין מג"א ס"ק כ"ד, ומצינו שם דאיכא פלוגתא די"א מצטרפות, וי"א אין מצטרפות משום פריצותא, וכמ"ש הטור סי' תרפ"ט, ועיין פר"ח דכל דאיכא היכר צירוף אינם מצטרפים משום פריצותא ע"ש, הרי התם טעמא דבעינן עשרה הוא משום פרסומי ניסא, ועכ"ז אי לאו משום דניכר היכר צירוף דחשיב פריצותא דדמי לזימון הנז"ל הוה אמרינן איכא פרסומי בנשים, ובזה נפשט הספק אשר נסתפקנו בנירות חנוכה, די"ל מהני צירוף נשים בעבור פרסום הנס...

Shu"t Rav Pealim, Orach Chayyim 2:62 (Rabbi Yosef Chayim of Baghdad, 1834-1909)

Regarding the matter of a man requesting forgiveness in the presence of ten, and whether ten women would be acceptable....

At first glance, I said to myself that logic demands that I say that ten women are acceptable, because since the only reason it to make the matter public, it may also be made public among the women. And on the contrary - women are more talkative, so they will publicize the matter more than men!...But then I changed my mind and thought the opposite...the women will not publicize it among the men...and it is possible that before women, he will not feel so ashamed of what he has done, and therefore he needs to say it before ten men who are like him...

But it seems to me that I should prove that publicizing things also works with women...for from all of this it seems, that were it not for the concern of sexual impropriety (of mixing men and women), that women would count for publicizing the miracle. And this solves the question we raised regarding Hannukah candles, for in fact, women count for the purpose of publicizing the miracle...