Question: Why are women not obligated in mitzvas Sukkah based on the idea of “af hein hayu b’oso ha’neis” (that they were part of the neis)?
Short Answer: There are numerous reasons why “af hein...” does not apply to the mitzvah of Sukkah.
Explanation:
I. The Exemption
The Mishnah (Sukkah 28a) writes that women are exempt from the mitzvah of Sukkah. The Gemara (ibid) originally learns that the source of women’s exemption from Sukkah is from the pasuk “ha’ezrach.” However, the Gemara concludes that in truth women’s exemption from mitzvas Sukkah is a halachah l’Moshe miSinai (“HLM”), and ha’ezrach is instead used for another d’Oraisa.
Asks the Gemara: Why do we even need any source to exempt women from mitzvas Sukkah, isn’t it a mitzvas asei she’ha’zman grama, a time-dependent mitzvah from which women are generally exempt? Two answers are provided. Abaye answers that, had we not known from the HLM that women are exempt, we would have thought they are obligated because “teishvu k’ein taduru,” that just as spouses live together in houses, they live together in a sukkah. Rava answers: Had we not known from the HLM that women are exempt, we would have thought they are obligated because of the connection between Pesach and Sukkos (“tes vav, tes vav”), as women are obligated in matzah based on other sources (a hekeish).
There seems to be a key point missing from this Gemara. The Gemara does not discuss “af hein hayu b’oso ha’neis” (“AHHBH”). Perhaps we need the HLM to teach us that women are exempt from Sukkah, because otherwise we would have thought they are obligated because of AHHBH. Clearly, because Abaye and Rava did not give this answer, there must be some reason why AHHBH does not apply to Sukkah.
II. Tosafos’ Question
Tosafos (P’sachim 108b) cites two explanations of AHHBH. First, that women were the cause of the salvation connected to the neis, such as Esther by Megillah and Yehudis by Chanukah. Second, that women are part of the edict to be destroyed before the salvation through the neis. Tosafos asks, presumably according to this second explanation, why are women exempt from mitzvas Sukkah, weren’t they also protected by the Ananei HaKavod? Tosafos answers that we only say AHHBH by mitzvos d’Rabbanan, such as Megillah, Chanukah, and four cups on Pesach. Sukkos, however, is a mitzvah d’Oraisa, and therefore AHHBH does not apply.
Based on this Tosafos (P’sachim), it makes sense why the Gemara in Sukkah did not invoke AHHBH, as it would not apply for a d’oraysa mitzvah. Nevertheless, Tosafos (Megillah 4a) appears to contradict this understanding, at least according to one opinion therein.
Tosafos (Megillah 4a) asks why we need a hekeish to obligate women in the mitzvah of Matzah – just obligate them because of AHHBH? The first answer of Tosafos is consistent with Tosafos in P’sachim – AHHBH does not work to obligate women on a d’Oraisa level. The second answer of Tosafos, in the name of Rabbeinu Yosef Ish Yerushalayim, has a different approach. Really AHHBH would work by a d’Oraisa, but we don’t learn that women are obligated in Matzah from AHHBH because we have a competing limud, that women would be exempt from Matzah based on the connection of Matzah to Sukkos (“tes vav, tes vav”).
In other words, according to the second answer of Tosafos (Megillah), AHHBH should obligate women in Sukkah. It is unclear how this opinion in Tosafos interprets the Gemara in Sukkah, which implies that AHHBH does not apply to the d’Oraisa mitzvah of Sukkah. This question was asked by the Turei Even (Megillah ibid).
III. Simple Answer
A simple answer to this question is to explain that the second answer of Tosafos (Megillah), the opinion of Rabbeinu Yosef Ish Yerushalayim, holds like the first interpretation of AHHBH, as found in Tosafos in P’sachim. AHHBH only applies where women are the main catalyst of the neis. This is true by Chanukah and Purim, but not by Sukkos, as there was no female heroine by Sukkos.
The sefer Dibros Yosef (Megillah, p. 54) uses the above answer to explain a perplexing Magen Avraham. The Shulchan Aruch (472:14) writes in Hilchos Pesach that women are obligated in four cups at the Seder and “all other mitzvos” of the Seder night. The Magen Avraham (16) comments that women are obligated in Seder night mitzvos because women were the catalyst for the neis of Pesach (“bishvil nashim tzidkaniyos nig’alu...”), “as opposed to Sukkos.” The N’siv Chayim (ibid) comments that the Magen Avraham wasn’t specific, as the fact that women were the catalyst of the neis (as opposed to being persecuted by the Mitzriyim) is itself a dispute in Tosafos.
The Dibros Yosef answers that the Magen Avraham was very exact in his words. The Kovetz Shiurim (P’sachim 213) asks on the Shulchan Aruch why he seemingly haphazardly obligates women in “all other mitzvos” of the Seder night, including the d’Oraisa mitzvah of Sipur Y’tzias Mitzrayim. This contradicts the first answer of Tosafos in Megillah (as well as the Tosafos in P’sachim) that AHHBH does not apply to d’Oraisa mitzvos. Rather, the Shulchan Aruch must hold like the second answer of Tosafos (Megillah), the opinion of Rabbeinu Yosef Ish Yerushalayim, that AHHBH does apply to d’Oraisa mitzvos. But he questions why women are not obligated in Sukkah according to the Shulchan Aruch. The Magen Avraham appears to answer this: The Shulchan Aruch holds that AHHBH means that women were the catalyst of the neis, which does not apply by Sukkah. Hence, the Magen Avraham concludes “as opposed to Sukkos.”
IV. Other Answers
An article in the journal Kol Torah (5775, Vol. 79, p. 234) cites numerous Acharonim, including the sefer Ein Eliyahu, who provide another answer why we don’t say AHHBH by Sukkos. The Chasam Sofer writes that the opinion of the Gemara that says that the sukkos were Ananei HaKavod and that is what we commemorate on Sukkos, in truth we are commemorating the RETURN of the Ananei HaKavod post the sin of the Eigel. Since women did not sin with the Eigel, they are not actually included in the neis of the return of the Ananei HaKavod, because they never left for the women. Thus, AHHBH does not apply to Sukkos.
The Maharam MiRutenberg (cited in Maadanei Asher, 5767, Emor) answers a bit differently. AHHBH does not apply to Sukkos because the Ananei HaKavod did not prevent any danger. In other words, the neis did not save from any persecution. The Aruch LaNeir (cited ibid) wonders why the snakes and scorpions do not count as danger. Chazon Ovadiah (Pesach 1, p.292) answers that there were two types of clouds. The clouds that encircled them, this is what we celebrate on Sukkos. However, the snakes and scorpions were killed by the other clouds that went in front of the B’nei Yisrael. Thus, AHHBH, which only applies to a neis preventing danger, is inapplicable to Sukkos and the Ananei HaKavod that surrounded the B’nei Yisrael.
The Netziv (Meromei Sadeh, Megillah 4a) likewise answers this question. The neis of Sukkos is not told or publicized through sitting in the sukkah. This is in contrast to Megillah or Seder night, whereby performance of the mitzvah publicizes the actual neis. Accordingly, AHHBH does not apply to Sukkah, as it only applies where performance of the mitzvah publicizes the neis.
V. Rav Soloveitchik’s Approach
Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik zt”l (cited in the new Batei Yosef, Yamim Nora’im, p. 147) provides a similar answer as the Netziv (his great-great-grandfather). There is no actual fulfillment of pirsumei nisa in sitting in the sukkah. As such, AHHBH does not apply.
Rav Soloveitchik brings a trick to determine if AHHBH applies to a certain mitzvah. If the mitzvah has the brachah of “She’asah Nisim,” then AHHBH applies, as the actual performance of the mitzvah expresses the neis. Indeed, the only reason we don’t recite She’asah Nisim on the four cups at the Seder is because we don’t have any brachos on this mitzvah or because we already recite “Asher G’alanu,” which is similar to She’asah Nisim.
Rabbi Ephraim Glatt, Esq. is the Associate Rabbi at the Young Israel of Kew Gardens Hills, and he is a Partner at McGrail & Bensinger LLP, specializing in commercial litigation. Questions? Comments? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
